Here is the full text of the 98-page indictment in Georgia..
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...indictment.pdf
Printable View
Here is the full text of the 98-page indictment in Georgia..
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...indictment.pdf
Trump is again alleging that there was election fraud in Georgia in 2020. He plans to present proof on Monday..
Quote:
“A Large, Complex, Detailed but Irrefutable REPORT on the Presidential Election Fraud which took place in Georgia is almost complete & will be presented by me at a major News Conference at 11:00 A.M. on Monday of next week in Bedminster, New Jersey,” he said.
“Based on the results of this CONCLUSIVE Report, all charges should be dropped against me & others — There will be a complete EXONERATION! They never went after those that Rigged the Election,” Trump continued. “They only went after those that fought to find the RIGGERS!”
Trump’s claims that he has “election fraud” proof come after he and 19 co-defendants were charged Monday night over their efforts to conspire to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia, where President Biden narrowly won the popular vote.
More...
Republican's should start rioting and burning down urban areas.
Funny enough, the indictment points out that Trump and the co-defendants conspired to become the riggers themselves. Amazing how that worked out, using fictitious claims about vote rigging to camouflage your own attempts to actual rig the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Mostly peacefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
https://i.imgur.com/cHxwIZq.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Hope people actually read this indictment... You know what the first evidence they provide?
Act 1.
-----
"On or about the 4th day of November 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP made nationally televised speech falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election. Approximately four days earlier, on or about October 31, 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP discussed draft speech with unindicted coconspirator Individual l, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud. The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."
If that is true... then trials for Clinton and every other politician that claimed "they won"... starting with Georgia's own Stacy Abrams who for years said the "election was stolen" from her in Georgia.
Another fun one...
Act 22.
-------
"On or about the 3rd day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, "Georgia hearings now on @OANN. Amazing!" This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."
Tweeting about a news report is "an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."
Get that? Tweeting about a news report is "furtherance of a conspiracy" now....
Act 28.
-------
"On or about the 3rd day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP met with Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Bryan Cutler in the Oval Office at the White House and discussed holding special session of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."
So asking States to call an assembly and exam the results is now "furtherance of a conspiracy". I guess all those Democrats, in all those States, in all those previous elections should be tried now when they called for assemblies to be held and votes nullified.
Damn... as you read through what constitutes a "furtherance of a conspiracy" surrounding actions taken... we need to try each and every Politician out there.
Oh shit!! I found the smoking gun!!!!!
Act 32.
"On or about the 6th day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, "Gee, what surprise. Has anyone informed the so-called (says he has no power to do anything!) Governor @BrianKempGA his puppet Lt. Governor @GeoffDuncanGA, that they could easily solve this mess, WIN. Signature verification call Special Session. So easy! 'https://t.co/5cb4QdepU." This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."
He asked for a recount and... get this!!!!!! SIGNATURE VERIFICATION!... the absolute HORROR of it all!
Jesus fucking hell...
OHHH... and get this one!
"Act 36.
On or about the 6th day 0f December 2020, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY sent an e- mail to unindicted co-conspirator
Individual 2, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that stated he had been speaking with JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN and was attempting
to set up call with Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives David Ralston and President Pro Tempore of the Georgia Senate Butch Miller to encourage them to call special session of the Georgia General Assembly. In the email, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY stated, "Professor Eastman told me tonight that it is critical that the 16 Electors for President Trump meet next Monday and vote in accordance with U.S.C. 7." In the e-mail, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY further stated, "I assume you can make sure this happens." This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
You know what 3 U.S.C. 7 is?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/7
"The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to election day."
So their accusation of "furtherance of a conspiracy"... is.... citing an e-mail saying it's CRITICAL that they ADHERE to the LAW???
What fucking clown world are we in right now.
So.... apparently it's all a "furtherance of a conspiracy" if any coordination takes place what so ever to challenge an election.
This is going to be great for the country moving forward. Be nice to have some clarity on how it's all supposed to work.
Clown world.
So I'm sure it's escaped your attention, but the 16 Electors so named in the indictment are the 16 Fake Electors that members of the conspiracy caused to meet Dec. 14, 2020 to sign the fake certificate claiming they were the official electors, when they were not. Surely even you can see the difference between the sixteen officially chosen electoral college members for the State of Georgia who certified Biden and the sixteen fake electors conscripted in the conspiracy indictment who certified Trump?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
No, he can’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Actually I can... and the term "fake elector" - even though that term just started being used is a bit misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
https://whyy.org/articles/pennsylvan...ges-explainer/
"The term “fake electors” arose in the post-2020 election period when, in some states Biden had won, electors for Trump cast electoral votes despite Trump’s loss and then submitted their certificate of votes to Congress as well. Through investigations such as Congress’s select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack, “fake electors,” “false electors,” and “alternate electors” have come to represent the Trump allies who signed their name to those certificates."
So the actual electors for Trump - were the States actual Republican Party electors:
https://www.archives.gov/files/elect...nt-georgia.pdf
Now the document they submitted - the Certificate of the Vote of the 2020 Electors from Georgia (page 7):
https://www.americanoversight.org/am...trump-electors
Would have been valid - had Trump's legal contesting of the votes had overturned any election results.
The document submitted by the winning party in Georgia (Democrats), was counted after State challenges had been ruled upon.
https://www.archives.gov/files/elect...te-georgia.pdf
So before moving on - let's get this straight:
1. The Republican Electors in these States were appointed Electors for their Party - not "fake electors".
2. The Republican Electors signed a Certificate of the Vote of the 2020 Election, and submitted it while State Election results were being contested in numerous legal Proceedings by the Trump campaign all over the country.
So now that we have that clarified - Here's the sticking point that I can agree with you on (I know, I know a surprise that I would actually look at facts and be fair regarding it.)
2 of the 7 States that is at issue added this addendum in their submittal of the Certificate of the Vote:
Pennsylvania’s certificate said the votes they were casting should only be counted if a court found that they were the “duly elected and qualified Electors. The reasoning that we were given for the need to go through with this process was that [the campaign] was concerned that there was a number of court cases that the Trump campaign had not adjudicated yet,” DeMarco said, and the campaign hoped a favorable ruling for Trump in those cases might have changed the outcome of the vote. In that scenario, DeMarco added, the campaign was concerned that if there was no slate of electors submitted under the constitutional process, the court victories would be meaningless. “So I as well as others said ‘Fine, but let’s make the document reflect that,’ ” he said. “So we’re a bit different from the other folks.”
Nevada was the other State to include similar language in submitting the Republican Electors document.
Now the point I can get behind - possibly - is the 5 States that did not include that terminology in their documentation. That seems absurd and extremely stupid not to.
So, can I see where your side might be coming from with this? Sure, potentially.
Can I see where my thinking might be coming from with this? Sure thing.
How it lays out is based on the intent I suppose...
Did Trump really believe certain States had been stolen from him? I'd conjecture yes.
Did Trump contest in the Courts numerous times? Yes.
Is submitting documentation by the "due date" of 14 December to Congress required to certify the Vote by Congress? Yes.
So, laying that out... we've got a real good question moving forward... Officially what should be the process of acquiescence/challenging of the results in the Courts vs. the required date of submittal of appropriate, signed documentation to the Federal level?
Again - The ACTUAL Republican Electors submitted their votes for their Party Candidate, and those Electors votes WOULD HAVE counted had Trumps legal actions been in his favor.
So I suppose you have to determine intent in this case - was it really to "overthrow the election" or "contest the election" due to timeline requirements.
The current indictment in Georgia - and the "evidence" they provide in it really comes down to perspective and intent at this point... at least in my opinion:
ie. Trump is contesting the Election! - the "evidence" seems trivial and common for doing that.
ie. Trump is overthrowing the Election! - the "evidence" seems significant and abnormal for doing that.
Some are going to see it one way, others another.
I'll have to think on it for a few days personally.
As to ensure conflicts like this do not arise again, I really hope some clarification/adjustments are made with regards to periods of contention in the Legal System vs. when the appropriate documents are required to be submitted.
Not going to lie, this point is actually intriguing to me now... from a foundational perspective of our Government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
You're right, he can't tell the difference. How you know is he's actually trying to argue that felony documents forged to act as the official electoral documents from the State of Georgia are justified under a bogus legal theory. The belief anyone can file their slate of votes, however contradictory while pretending to be a state's official, nominated electoral college delegates is straight out of bizzaro world. Sixteen people were named the delegates, period. That Shaps thinks that as long as you file bogus legal claims, regardless of their being thrown out in Court, acting out a conspiracy to surplant legitimate electors is proof of his mental illness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
And depending how this plays out... it's going to open up a shit show moving forward for any elections.
ie. Stacy Abrams for years didn't concede and contested her election results - does that require legal action?
ie. The Democrat Party made a FAKE report, submitted it to Federal Authorities, and tried to Impeach a sitting US President based on proven lies.
I mean... if I'm willing to look at the current situation objectively... you're telling me the Democrat Party shouldn't have been scorched for what they did?
Or is it all just "Politics" when it's your side, and a "coup d'état" when your opponents do anything?
You tell me.
You... are... a... fucking... moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
And there is no way you actually read all the links or documents I posted.
Just stop already. Dealing with you is worthless at this point.
As for historical concepts on this...
https://www.justsecurity.org/82233/a...m-hayes-tiden/
"Since then, the question has arisen whether anyone should be criminally prosecuted in connection with these submissions of groundless pro-Trump electoral votes. As part of considering this question, it is worth comparing an historical example in which self-proclaimed electoral votes were sent to, and considered by, Congress. The historical episode sheds light on the answer to how the criminal law should be wielded to address the schemes to overturn the 2020 election."
Now you can read how the 1876 election went down... as Democrats in 1876 did exactly what the Republicans did in 2020...
South Carolina:
"Nonetheless, Tilden’s electors met and voted for him on the congressional designated day for Electoral College balloting. They submitted their spurious electoral votes to the Senate President pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment as though they rather than the Hayes electors were entitled to cast the state’s official Electoral College votes. In their submission, which was labeled in the joint session of Congress held to receive the votes in the 1876 election as “Certificate No. 2” from the state (“Certificate No. 1” being the one submitted in favor of Hayes), the Tilden electors declared themselves as “being electors duly and legally appointed by and for the State of South Carolina, as will hereinafter appear.” They acknowledged that their submission was not “signed by the governor” and “the seal of the State as affixed thereto, as required by law, is not attached.” They continued: “its absence is explained by the following statement.” Then they proceeded to recount the grounds on which they thought themselves rather than the Hayes electors entitled to be considered the true electors for the state."
"Despite this unanimity, reflecting the patent invalidity of their claim to be the state’s “duly and legally appointed” electors, none of these South Carolina individuals (as far as I know from my research) were criminally investigated or prosecuted for making this assertion."
VERMONT
" But a Democratic member of Congress, Abram Hewitt, who later would serve as mayor of New York City, claimed to possess a second submission of electoral votes from Vermont. This package of purported electoral votes was never opened in the joint session. The Senate President refused to accept it, despite protests from hardliner Democrats. He said it had missed the deadline for any such submissions. Although there was a subsequent effort in the House of Representatives to force the joint session to submit Vermont to the Electoral Commission for its consideration, a delay that would have endangered completing the count of electoral votes before the scheduled inauguration of the new president, the Speaker of the House blocked this move even though it was orchestrated by pro-Tilden members of his own party—and even though he had been personally chosen by Tilden to be Speaker in order to represent pro-Tilden interests during the dispute."
So you tell me... is it really that cut and dry?
If we're going off of legal precedent... tell me again how this is supposed to play out "criminally" vs. "politically".
So, as I said... it really comes down to the perspective of intent. Do you consider it "contesting the election" or attempting to "overthrow the election".
Whichever of those words you use, changes how the whole case is approached.
As for me? As I said, I need to think on it a bit to come to a conclusion of how to perceive it.
And I already know... you won't read a fucking thing and just keep spouting your bullshit... so don't bother writing a reply.
Last note on this topic for consideration:
The big thing in all my readings so far - one thing always is included, or jumps out.
Regardless of the Democrats or Republicans actions in any event - whether you perceive it as "contesting" or "attempting to overthrow" an election...
None of the election results were overturned. The term used is "had no effect on the outcome of the Election".
So is it criminal, or political... the actions the Political Parties take with regards to this?
Thoughts to consider... I know I will be.
It's all election interference since they know Biden is a goner without more corruption.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interferenceQuote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
The whataboutisms are particularly sad this time, notably the absence of a criminal nexus such as conspiracy, racketeering, forgery, etc used in Trump's criminal acts that are missing in the other cases.
There is no "whataboutism" it's facts, your side did what they are accusing Trump of doing and they did it on tape. You morons love this shit until you learn about the old axiom of what goes around comes around or, to put it more elegantly:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Robespierre’s Law – Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.
Shaps..EVERY candidate running for office is allowed to contest an election. Everyone can question the results, they can file for recounts, they can report voting irregularities to local and Federal authorities and they can litigate every part of the process. And Trump did ALL of these to an extent this country has never actually seen btw. But once that has all played out, you're out of legal options. No one- including Trump- is in trouble for going through the legal channels here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
What they're not allowed to do is have their legal team hire people to illegally access voting equipment, breach its systems, download the data and then share it publicly. Literally no one is allowed to do that.
And you're not allowed, as a sitting President, to call a state's election officials and order them to change their vote count so you win. Literally no one is allowed to do that period, ESPECIALLY the Head of the Federal Executive Branch.
You're also not allowed to organize a a dozen slates of fake electors, have them register as actual electors and have them submit their "votes" in an effort to sow confusion and rig the electoral college vote results. Again- literally no one is allowed to do that.
And you're not allowed to organize a violent and armed mob, rile them up and send them to attack Congress and your own Vice President in an effort to stop the election certification. And you're certainly not allowed to sit back for a few hours goading them on while everyone is hiding behind barricaded doors from a mob that's out for their blood. No one is allowed to do that.
What Trump and his "friends" are in trouble for is pursuing illegal avenues for ignoring certified election results to stay in power.
And you are SO stuck on defending Trump no matter what he does that you clearly haven't actually stopped to think about the implications of what you're saying. The only way to defend Trump is to say that it's 100% okay to do these things- making them the new normal. Is this how you want every election to play out from now on? I sure as hell don't.
Im not yet up to speed on the latest Georgia indictment, but I’ll focus on what you said here about January 6th for just a moment. This is false and disingenuous. All the exhaustive evidence we have seen thus far doesn’t paint this picture. The rioters were almost entirely unarmed. Trump didn’t say to the crowd “grab your rifles, break into the Capitol, and hold Mike Pence hostage.” He tweeted to tell the rioters to go home. The burden of proof is to directly connect Trump as legally responsible for the riot. What specific evidence (not hearsay and not far fetched circumstantial) do you think points Trump to organize a violent mob and send them to attack the Capitol in the manner of which you described?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
She's always full of shit like that. Don't expect much else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Seriously... does anyone actually read the word vomit from T4F? I've never been able to get past a single sentence. I do enjoy the random bold and caps it throws in there, as if that's how you win a debate. The best part is this... as much as I dislike Biden and his policies, I don't go to bed hating the world like T4F. Imagine having the belief stuck in it's tiny little brain that DJT gives two shits about it, it's gay lover, it's illegal brown whatever, it's tranny buddy who beats up women in womens sports. No one gives a shit about it, and that's why it comes here and posts walls of text with random bold and caps and sometimes italics... because it's life is so empty this is the only place it gets any attention whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Just be glad you aren't it.
Well, he’s being indicted on it, which means the grand jury says the prosecutors have enough evidence to say otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Plenty of the people who stormed the Capitol, feel Trump told them to do it, so for you to say it’s false, maybe for you it is, but to the countless people who were there, say the opposite.
Trump told them to go home, what like 3-4 hours later? After they were already in the building, destroying shit? That’s like shooting someone in the leg, giving them a bandaid and saying sorry, makes it all better.
What about the countless lies trump told about the national guard? Or the reports from his inner circle that he was enjoying what was happening? Those paint a completely different story.
I say the opposite. Boom, I just broke your "argument". Please take a fucking debate class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Or you should learn your opinion doesn’t matter? Trump is fucked, but bury your head in the sand some more, and when he gets convicted, you can pull your head out, cry some more and bury it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Point taken. It’s really not difficult to get past a grand jury, but trial is a whole different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
In everything you are saying, I’m asking what can you point to as evidence that Trump specifically told the rioters to violently attack the Capitol & hold Mike Pence hostage so he can defraud the government? Trump had no obligation to tell them to go home, but that action doesn’t support this narrative that Trump planned all this & incited a riot. I heard so-and-so say that Trump said doesn’t count in court. I haven’t seen anything thus far that directly ties Trump to the charges. This is why I have said that particular case is weak-sauce.
Grand juries are not infallible. They are a group of citizens with varying education levels. A smooth talking prosecutor can convince them of things just as easily as a defense attorney can. If you feel that a grand jury is the end all be all of things, then what do you think of regular trial juries? Every person ever found guilty is 100% guilty?
I'm not trying to debate anything here, just putting that out there. A grand jury is made of your peers.
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
A grand jury determines if there is probable cause to believe an individual may have committed a crime. A jury determines the defendant is guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof between the two is massive.
The amount of evidence required to get an indictment vs. the amount of evidence required to get a conviction from a jury is like the difference between your testosterone levels and the testosterone levels of a normal man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
It is exponentially more.
I’m sure when he goes to court, we will either see the evidence or it’s all bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Of course there’s evidence. The MAGA’s will continue their mental gymnastics and cry about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
How many hours did he wait to tell them to go home while people he organized at the Whitehouse? Are we forgetting Team Trump telling everyone to fight like hell? The only disingenuous argument here is your own to try and explain away Trump's organizing a violent mob.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Ninety. One. Felonies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Probably be more when states like AZ, MI and PA get involved.
91. Oooooooooooweeeeeeeeeee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Let me clarify a bit, you don’t need to give a “direct order” to tell someone to attack. Let’s imagine I’m the leader of an armed biker gang, and I go up my crew at the bar and say, Yo, these fuckers disrespected me, let’s go talk to them. You know damn well, my biker gang would roll up, heavily armed and ready for war. Now, let’s imagine there was a shooting, I didn’t tell them to grab their guns, or we are going to fight, but my intention was clear to them but maybe to someone outside of the gang, who heard me say that, they didn’t think this would happen based on my words, nor did I ever tell them to directly do what I wanted them to do.
An angry group of armed men, who have undying support for Trump, believe every word he says and take things to extreme, and in some cases believe him to be their god, (this would be his gang) when Trump says let’s meet up and let’s head to the Capitol, we need to take back our country, and fight like hell or whatever, much like my biker gang, those people are going to arm up and prepare to “take back our country” and “fight like hell” in whichever way they are fit, and they will take it to an extreme.
Trump has a history of extremely fiery speech, that can be taken in any number of ways, such as telling the proud boys, “Stand back, and stand by” or whatever he said.
You aren’t an undying loyal Trump supporter that believes everything he says, or think he’s some sort of god, like the ones who stormed the Capitol. What they heard Trump say, and what you heard Trump say have two completely different interpretations.
So once again, you have people, who stormed the Capitol, telling us, Trump told us to do it. Why shouldn’t we believe them?
Do you think when the biker dude is in court for murder, and he says my boss told us to do it, that the judge is going to believe me when I said “no I didn’t your honor, I said “let’s go talk to them.””. I really meant just talk to them? Of course not. I’ll be also charged with murder.
https://media.tenor.com/m2hkoxJEbBoA...-awareness.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
Let's see the actual evidence on this claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Everything about January 6th was orchestrated to get a desired result.
Everything.
If you’re measuring the time with a stop watch, when do you think he should have tweeted for them to go home? He was under no obligation to do so but he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
“Fight like hell” does not equal or imply “take up arms, break into the Capitol, and hold Mike Pence hostage so that he cannot cetify election results” despite what the January 6th Comission told you live on MSNBC.
Fair enough and agreed. To further clarify, my opinion of the case being weak is based on the evidence we have seen thus far. It’s been beaten to death with the J6 commission and such. It’s entirely possible the prosecution has new or additional evidence we haven’t seen & didn’t include in the indictment. Possible, but my assessment is low probability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
If analyze that single act, without any other facts or events which occured then you would be correct. But that isn't the situation here. Parties were invited and Trump actually tried to force the secret service to not be divested of weapons by removing the metal detectors. Trump got all those parties in place by advertising the opportunity to save their country, a location blocks away from the capital building, and proceeded though his and associates testimony to rile up the crowd and get them ready to fight for the freedom they were convinced they lost. Trump then explicitly urged them to march on the capital building. At this point, causality was established.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
What now? Again in a nutshell you only have inciting a riot and disruption of Congress. But wait there is more, there is the documented plan circulated by Trump officials and attorneys to use the chaos of their attempts to thwart the count of the vote, Pence refusing to certify, violence and disruption of the certification, so that Congress didn't meet it's prescribed deadline under the Electoral College Act. That was their DOCUMENTED PLAN. But it failed, because Pence decided not to play along. Trump actually announced this and what happened next with their anger and violence towards Pence "hang Mike Pence" was a direct result of Trump's urging.
Trump waited HOURS to act, and prosecutors are arguing this, because his hope was events would play out that certification couldn't happen one way or the other to invoke the clause in the electoral college act that Congress then vote to decide the President, not delegates. Again this was the documented plan.
All of the above is why this is a conspiracy by Trump to stay President.
Yes I agree you don’t have to explicitly say take up arms and storm the Capitol, and let me reveal my elaborate evil plot in a speech like some Bond villain giving a monelague. However, saying we’re going down there and fight like hell (paraphrasing) isn’t even implying any of that in my eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
On your question of why shouldn’t we believe them?, a couple things…. In this country a defendant is presumed innocent. It needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise so that testimony can and should be scrutinized. There is also the matter of a constitutional right to free speech. If I hear my daughters’ elementary school is teaching lesbian dance theory, and I get on the PTA board to tell other fathers we are going down to the PTA meeting and fight like hell…would you assume that means to get violent? If some other dad idiot breaks into the meeting and gets violent, would you assume that my words were responsible for inciting a riot? The answer should be fuck no.
What documented plan? Show me this in writing and proof that it was written, authorized, or signed by Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
You’re right, but context also matters, let’s imagine you found out that a few teacher were possibly beating and abusing children, and you told the other parents to head down to the school and fight like hell, that answer would be a fuck yes.
Free speech doesn’t mean you are free from consequences either.
I fundamentally disagree. Fight like hell is way too generic. I can say my wife and I have fought like hell. What I would mean by that is strong heated verbal arguments. Neither of us have ever been physically violent with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
That being said, I also respect your opinion and appreciate the dialogue.
Incoming "imagination" arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2...tNte/giphy.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
That's the cop out right there. A bit of foreshadowing for you, criminal intent doesn't require you to have a signed stipulation agreeing to a set of events to be held criminally liable. The special prosecutor need only show Trump had direct knowledge of the plan, had motive to see it carried out, had conversation with, acted out, or otherwise directed a part of said plan to obtain the indictment and hopefully a conviction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
You would know, you use it literally every time to defend Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Once again, context matters, and also there have been countless times when a couple “fought like hell”, and it was physical as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Not a cop out. You said there was a DOCUMENTED PLAN. I haven’t seen one. Yes that is the burden of proof for conspiracy charges. I have yet to see direct evidence directly linking Trump to this grand conspiracy. I’ve certainly heard a lot of circumstantial (at best if not hearsay) evidence, but I have my reasonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
That’s what I mean. Fight like hell can mean many different things. It’s rather generic and vague. How can you prove that Trump didn’t mean legally & peacefully protest? Fight like hell could mean write an angry toned letter to your state representative. Now if he said “We’re going down there to break into the Capitol” or something like that, I would agree that goes beyond protected free speech. Trump went right up to the legal line without crossing it in my humble assessment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Don't get into a semantics argument with them...
I've played and posted numerous videos/articles of the Left saying all types of shit and outright threats.
They don't care. They will talk you in circles, because they will never acknowledge wrongdoing on their part. It's a fools errand to try and convince them otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
A lot of criminal defense lawyers would sympathize with your concerns. People in the United States have been sentenced to death based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. That's all you need if a jury believes the circumstances are strong enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
And you think a documented plan requires be have written, authorized, or signed it that isn't the burden of proof that must be established. That his attorney and underling prepared the order, he had personal knowledge of it and he personally took part in is all that is required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Odd.. sort of like Joe Biden and his family getting millions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Oh wait.. that's your team.
True. Also The Juice was found not guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
That lucky ass murderin bastid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I think people genuinely don't know what circumstantial evidence is.
Fingerprints are circumstantial evidence.
ANYTHING collected by forensics is circumstantial.
Anything short of a video showing someone do something is generally going to be circumstantial.
You can absolutely convict someone on circumstantial evidence.
documentedQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
/ˈdäkyəˌment/
record (something) in written, photographic, or other form.
I’ll accept a photo or another form if you have it.
Yes you can, but it requires a lot of connecting of the dots that a good defense can poke holes in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I’m not saying that it’s impossible for Trump to be convicted. I’m saying that Trump is a public figure. People have strong opinions and biases. Yes I’m aware that shouldn’t matter but we all know that is a factor. My opinion of the J6 case is that it’s not strong enough, based on the evidence we the public know today, for 12 jurors to unanimously render a guilty verdict. It only takes one to say no.
On a separate note, do you know how rare jury trials are in other countries & how fortunate we are to have them in the United States? God bless America.
Oh, well that is your first mistake right there. You aren’t going to convince anyone on the PC your views. We’re just here to shoot the shit man. You have to enjoy the circles and take entertainment from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
May not be the doc you describe, but we'll likely get some documentation from one of the 18 facing RICO charges. Something along the lines of "Yep, he was in on it Here's the scoop" Sign here X "Please don't charge me with all those mandatory minimums."Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Given the literal plan written out by Cheeseman and Clark outlining their strategy for invalidating the electoral college results which the special prosecutor has laid out in Georgia was carried out for their state, I don't think there is any doubt about a conviction. The number of defendants pulls in the co-conspirators, the indictment lays out the 'connected dots'. Three of his four indictments are bullet proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo
Fox News pretty clearly shows the divide runs along party lines per their latest poll. It's sad really, the Democrats and Independents clearly see the well outlined charges which have been approved by a grand jury of the people in four occasions now. While Republicans have been convinced by the irrational distractions about whataboutism claims and distinctly unproven political motivations. I'm looking foreward to guilty verdicts, not going to lie.Quote:
Fifty-three percent believe Trump did something illegal when it comes to efforts to change the 2020 election results, including most Democrats (90%) and 6 in 10 independents (62%). About 1 in 10 Republicans think the former president did something illegal (13%).
You’re not a real MAGA. You’re just an internet troll who lives a miserable existence. You’re not an actual trump cultist and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You exist to make others miserable. It’s very sad and I feel genuinely bad for your children.
You want to see real MAGA?Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE REAL MAGA!
It’s actually funny you say this honestly buddy, you don’t have any direct evidence linking Biden, fuck you don’t even have circumstantial evidence linking him to his son and all his business dealings, yet every single Republican says he’s guilty of it, so why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
You all complain about a two tier Justice system, yet look at what you all are asking for, in defense of Trump, there’s no evidence! He’s innocent! but when it comes to Biden, HE’S GUILTY! I don’t need evidence!
Yeah, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, first person testimony and video of him doing exactly what was the excuse for the first impeachment. Just because you and others discount, dismiss and ignore it does not mean it isn't there. Keep guzzling the copium and supporting election interfearance. Remember Robespierre’s Law – Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
There is a great deal of evidence to charge Hunter with many crimes. There is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence that ties Joe Biden to crimes. The stuff that I know about now, it’s not yet enough to convict him in a criminal trial. There is possibly enough to get past a grand jury if he were not the current President, but it would be a weak-sauce case with the public information we know. Further investigation is needed. I’ll be consistent in saying even if there was overwhelming damning concrete evidence, it would be difficult to get an unbiased jury. Our justice system might be the best in the world, but it’s far from perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Oh I 100% agree that Hunter did fuck up, but there is no direct evidence linking his father to anything, the Republican committee even admitted it, but every Republican will say the president is guilty, yet they don’t say the same thing about Trump?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I even made a post about it earlier, and multiple republicans said they don’t need direct evidence, but here we are, republicans asking for direct evidence for Trump?
Republicans: The Biden family is corrupt! The president made money on business deals in Ukraine!
Democrats: there is no direct evidence to support this.
Republicans: It doesn’t matter, we know he’s guilty!
Republicans: Trump is innocent!
Democrats: but there is possible evidence to support what he did was illegal.
Republicans: Where is the direct evidence?! There is none! Trump is innocent and did nothing wrong!
Democrats: but there is no direct evidence against Joe Biden?
Republicans: doesn’t matter, Trump is innocent and Joe Biden is corrupt!
See the issue here? With The president, you don’t need direct evidence, you just know he’s guilty, but with Trump, you need direct evidence, otherwise you just know he’s innocent.
How does that work?
Is the excuse this is a democratic witch hunt? Well, couldn’t I just say this a Republican witch hunt against Joe Biden?
I never claimed to be a MAGA.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
I live an exceptional life that I'm extremely happy with.
I never said I was a Trump cultist. Ever.
Knowing I have had this type of impact on your "life" makes me actually feel very warm inside.Quote:
You exist to make others miserable.
Thank you.
Now I know it wasn't for nothing... I got great entertainment from this site and I made one retard extremely miserable because of words on a forum.
Are you still so upset I got $180 from you for being an ultra-tard? Bro, it's only $180.. but if you really need it back because you still are having trouble making ends meet.. just let me know.
You don't have to.. We have raised 2 very well adjusted young ladies who are ready for the world.Quote:
It’s very sad and I feel genuinely bad for your children.
4+ years of Russia, Russia, Russia broke any remaining trust people had in our government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
"Trust us this time" is not going to work. The fact that you still trust any of them says more about you than it does our "leaders".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Uh oh. The "Irrefutable REPORT" may turn out to be like Trump's health plan, which he kept saying for four years that he was just about to announce but never did.
Quote:
Former President Donald Trump's promised press conference to refute the allegations in the indictment handed up by the Fulton County DA's Office is now very much in doubt, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
Sources tell ABC News that Trump's legal advisors have told him that holding such a press conference with dubious claims of voter fraud will only complicate his legal problems and some of his attorneys have advised him to cancel it.
More...
Seriously, take a debate course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Just so you don't think I'm picking on you because you are colossally stupid, here is AI's analysis of this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
The argument you've presented highlights several issues and fallacies. Let's break down the problems with the argument step by step:
1. **Straw Man Fallacy:** The argument seems to oversimplify the stances of Republicans and Democrats. It might not accurately represent the full range of opinions within these parties.
2. **Cherry-Picking:** The argument cherry-picks statements from Republicans and Democrats to create a false equivalence. It doesn't necessarily represent the nuanced positions held by individuals within these parties.
3. **Generalization:** The argument generalizes the opinions of Republicans and Democrats as if they are monolithic groups, which can oversimplify the diversity of opinions within each party.
4. **Confirmation Bias:** The argument seems to focus on instances that confirm a pre-existing bias, rather than addressing a comprehensive range of opinions and arguments from both sides.
5. **False Equivalence:** The argument equates the reactions and behaviors of Republicans and Democrats without acknowledging the differences in context, evidence, and individual viewpoints.
6. **Misrepresentation of Views:** The argument portrays Republicans as uniformly dismissing evidence against Trump and Democrats as unconditionally defending Biden. This oversimplification ignores the complexity of discussions and opinions within both parties.
7. **Causal Inference:** The argument assumes that just because some Republicans are skeptical of evidence against Trump, all Republicans must be similarly skeptical of evidence against Biden. It doesn't consider the possibility of differing motivations or justifications.
8. **Hypothetical Comparisons:** The argument draws comparisons between hypothetical scenarios involving Trump and Biden, which doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of how evidence is evaluated in legal or political contexts.
9. **False Dichotomy:** The argument sets up a false dichotomy between "knowing guilt" without direct evidence in one case and "knowing innocence" due to lack of direct evidence in another case. Legal processes and political discourse are more complex than such simplistic distinctions.
10. **Lack of Context:** The argument doesn't provide sufficient context for the specific claims against Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the impeachment processes that have taken place.
11. **Assumption of Motive:** The argument assumes that one party's actions are driven solely by a desire to protect their own, without considering other possible motives or reasoning.
12. **Comparing Apples to Oranges:** The argument compares reactions to allegations and situations that are not necessarily equivalent, as the circumstances, evidence, and legal standards can differ significantly.
In essence, the argument oversimplifies the complexities of political discourse, legal processes, and individual opinions within the two parties. It's important to approach such discussions with a willingness to consider multiple viewpoints, analyze evidence critically, and avoid painting entire groups with a broad brush.
"Russia, Russia, Russia is the tip of the iceberg. What about the Steele Dossier that was used to spy on an opponent's Presidential campaign? Or 2 impeachment farces? Or purposely false media reports for 4 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Or how about the biggest one I believe:
WHEN OUR GOVERNMENT CENSORED ITS CITIZENS WITH THE HELP OF SOCIAL MEDIA???
Like that is literally against the first amendment right of the People!
No real liberal would stand for that.. but the left isn't liberal or progressive at all... it's literally fascism.
And this was happening for a very long time.. well before Biden and even before Trump. Lifelong government bureaucrats have been entrenched in every fabric of our "freedom", picking winners and losers where they do not belong.
I don't want our government censoring the right OR the left.. because they have no business doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
That is awesome, taking a computer program incapable of perceiving the difference between hyperbole and sarcasm and turning it loose on a post characterizing Republican hypocrisy. Classic. If only you had any relevance whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
ChatGPT says that you are unique from all other humans because Skynet doesn’t perceive you as a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Let SHM, use his Chat AI, it’s the only way he can come up with any type of response, because he’s to retarded to do it himself. He can’t reply because it will show his own stupid hypocrisy, and we can’t have that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
He probably doesn’t even understand half of what the AI said, it contains words with four or more syllables, 2+ to many for him.
Fair enough, I can understand and respect your opinion on that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
But Seran is correct, using a chat AI program to dissect a comment full of hyperbole and hypocrisy, is just fucking retarded, and anyone attempting to use that as a basis for reasoning or a retort, is equally as retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I think a lot of folks on the PC think they can change hearts & minds or that we’re engaged in a debate for the soul of this country. Sometimes it’s helpful, myself included, to just take a step back & not take everything so seriously. We’re expressing our opinions, trading insults, and engaging in conversations about politics for entertainment purposes. I enjoy the different perspectives. Even Seran at times has interesting (but still totally retarded) things to say. K…enough being complimentary & soft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
If this was a formal academic debate, ChatGPT would be correct. It’s not though.
To be fair, you aren't worthy of any real response since you probably won't understand it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
He was dissecting YOUR post. You realize this.. right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Maybe in the future.. don't make posts full of hyperbole and hypocrisy and bullshit.. because that's just fucking retarded.
"IT'S NOT FAIR THAT SHM USED AI TO RESPOND TO MY POST BECAUSE MY POST WAS UTTER BULLSHIT FILLED WITH HYPERBOLE AND HYPOCRISY!" -Soykern 2023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I know two people who won't survive when AI takes over the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Doesn't change the fact Solkern needs to take a debate class so he'll stop looking like a fucking idiot.
Want my best Solkern debate imitation? Here goes... Imagine if something that hasn't happened, did, and then you were watching it on youtube, and Ted Cruise said the grass is green, when clearly that grass is yellow, and then imagine if AOC was on youtube, and she said it was yellow, well then it's clear democrats are the best. But I'm not a democrat. Did I tell you about my Russian friend? He wants you to text him and he'll tell you how right I am.
Just stop posting comments full of hyperbole and hypocrisy and being fucking retarded. It's that easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
I would "imagine" that "bankers" will be easily replaced by AI. It will be Trumps fault, he will be indicted and the hearings will be held the day before super Tuesday 2032.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I got a better one for you, imagine you weren’t a fucking idiot, wait that’s just not possible with you. Try harder cupcake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
There is a human element to building relationships with banking. I think that will be one of the more difficult things to replaced by AI, but there will likely be a need for less of them as AI automates a lot of the backend function.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
https://media3.giphy.com/media/j3WI2...giphy.gif&ct=g
It shouldn't require a personal relationship to get a loan or deposit money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Banking should be one of the first industries to be taken over by AI... as it's pretty much black and white and numbers.
That way, you won't have a self proclaimed person in the banking industry that is easily confused with the terms "debt" and "deficit".
That's it? Hey, do you want to call my Peruvian friend and ask him if he thinks you are the dumbest person on these forums?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
"It's a Wonderful Life" was a fictional story, bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
https://s26162.pcdn.co/wp-content/up...erful-Life.jpg
Careful.. Soykern will put you on IGNORE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
What’s the point? Your friend will just say you are? Are you trying to reinforce, what we already know about you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You really are a fucking idiot.
Why don’t you go make another $10k bet with Exit, and make every excuse possible on why you shouldn’t pay? Then disappear for a few months afterwards, hoping people would forget. When we know the real reason is cause you just don’t have that kind of money.
This is about the extent of the idiocy on this forum. You are inserting your /subjective/ opinion that Solkern is spouting hyperbole or hypocrisy when in fact 80%-90% of his posts are well thought out and frequently supported by objective fact. You're threatening to continue your own reign of distraction, hyperbole, and 'retardation' unless he gives in to your demand he stop speaking the truth. Watch out now, you're slipping fast into authoritarianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Noted. Not defending Solkern or even me, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to change consumer behavior to use self automation tools? There is a significant segment of the population that absolutely hates dealing with phone IVRs, self serve kiosks, AI chat, and even many in-app service functions. Remember back when Amazon piloted delivery via drones and they found people beat them with bats & fired shotguns? AI will take over almost everything but it will take time for the population (especially Xenials and older) to widely adopt to changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Also, my job is relationship management for large sized B2B in merchant services. It’s financial services and part of a huge sized FI, but I’m not a retail banker. Think of Simutronics taking credit cards, except my clients are hospitals & government. Without sounding pompous, my job isn’t being replaced by AI anytime soon. And when it does, I have a side hustle with real investments. I’ll be fine.
Our jobs will be taken over by AI, long after we retire, I'm not worried at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Typical nut job like SHM, you aren’t allowed to use hypocrisy and hyperboles to prove a point, only I am! The only truth is whatever truth is in my head! Alternative facts are real facts!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
What? Are you really incapable of following a thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
SHM didn't insert HIS /subjective/ opinion that Solkern is spouting hyperbole or hypocrisy.... Soykern himself said it:
Jesus Christ.. just when Soykern is being the dumbest in this thread today, you are like "Hold my government issued soy latte" and make him look less stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
You totally missed me mocking your idiotic flex of "call my friend". I get it though, you aren't smart. I'll be less subtle going forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Your recollection is still incorrect as well, again not surprising considering you aren't smart. Anyone can go look at the posts and determine for themselves. Feel free to post the links.
Unlike you, I’m fully aware of you “trying” to mock me and failing, but that shouldn’t be much of a surprise for you, failing is the one thing you succeed at. You should be proud of yourself! Good job champ!Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Maybe you should disappear again, just like you did after you lost your bet to Exit, and got called out by people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgiOjhkiuhwQuote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
https://media.tenor.com/DSVdMK2DrT4A...w-clapping.gif
Blasphemy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
https://blog.sleepingangel.com/wp-co...orgebailey.jpg
From a coding aspect it's more difficult to replace a fry cook than a banker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
I feel that Biden told them to do it, and you can't argue with how I feel because they're my feeeeeeeeeelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Now that that's out in the open, when will Biden be indicted for January 6?
You've spent the past 7 years being wrong and triggered. Sit down. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
Remember when he also said "peacefully?" Or are we just cherry picking the things you like and leaving out the inconvenient parts like usual?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Retard.
Person: Did Trump tell them to go riot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
You: Well no, but I heard that some people said they FEEEEEEL like he did, and that's good enough for me!
^ This is a similar kind of pretend logic that tried to blame Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map for Gabbi Giffords being shot.
And if you don't believe PB, just ask Keller. He should be making an appearance pretty soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Charge his ass! But he’ll probably end up going to prison for a failure to appear, cause of his senile old mind and forgetting the court date
I changed my mind. I feel like Estild told them to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
I expect Estild to be indicted any day now.
https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/rio...roperty-damage
"Exclusive: $1 billion-plus riot damage is most expensive in insurance history"
Dates Location Dollars 2020 dollars
May 26-June 8, 2020 20 states across U.S. $1-2b $1-2b
Now they'd have you believe it was "mostly peaceful"... "The protests that took place in 140 U.S. cities this spring were mostly peaceful, but the arson, vandalism and looting that did occur will result in at least $1 billion to $2 billion of paid insurance claims — eclipsing the record set in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of the police officers who brutalized Rodney King."
"Mostly peaceful" = Most expensive destruction of communities ever.
Don't worry about that part though... we're telling you it was "peaceful".
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...-idUSKBN2360SZ
"Biden staff donate to group that pays bail in riot-torn Minneapolis"
You can look up all the other donations and bailouts from Democrat leaders.
But again... YOU're the crazy one. YOU're the insane one. YOU're the one trying to overthrow the Government and YOU're the one who is trying to destroy the country.
https://media.tenor.com/kbmoW_3upW8A...ala-harris.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
I feel your pain bro. We’re are neither crazy nor domestic terrorists for saying that organized violent riots are not welcome in this country. Fuck those rich men north of Richmond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
So I do have to push back on this. Yes, most folks were unarmed. But there were armed members of that crowd, and Trump knew it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Mace, stun guns, baseball bats, etc. Pipe bombs. There's also recorded police radio that they had spotted people with AK-15s and Glocks. People faced weapons charges from that day. Guns were allegedly confiscated. 100 police officers were injured and 5 people died.
And more to the point- not only was Trump repeatedly informed before the event that there was a high likelihood of violence, but he was also told during the event that people in the crowd were armed (which is why they were standing outside of the metal detectors). Trump said apparently said he didn't care because they weren't going to hurt him. He wanted the metal detectors removed so they would come closer to the stage. People who were there testified about this under oath.
He sent them to the Capitol building and told them that this was their last chance to save their country. They were there because of Trump, he organized an entire event to make them angry, and then he knowingly sent armed people to the Capitol. He literally told them to "Fight Like Hell". Did he tell them to bring weapons? No. Did he know they already had them? Yes.
And to be clear, Trump waited 3 hours to tell people to go home. Multiple people have testified under oath that people were pleading with him the whole time to call it off. And he refused. Even when he did finally do it, he told him he loved them and that they were special people and repeated all the same lies and lines that got them worked up to begin with. i.e. He justified their actions.Quote:
“We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,” Trump said. “So we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue – I love Pennsylvania Avenue – and we are going to the Capitol.”
And two hours later he tweeted this:
I'm not going to call you disingenuous because I don't think that's your goal at all, but I am going to say that you are missing A LOT of information.Quote:
“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
I stopped reading after this line because you are full of shit, but please tell me more about these scary “AK-15s” that was recorded on police radio.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
You are just drowning in copium.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Ok, I did read the rest of it. Again Trump was under no legal obligation to tell the rioters to go home in any length of time, but he did. Thank you for not calling me disingenuous and indeed it is not my goal to be that way. It’s possible I’m missing information, but I’m giving my opinion based on the knowledge I have. I disagree with you, but thank you for the response and clarifying.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
I'm sorry, is the argument here that it's legally permissible for Trump and his people to access state voting equipment, download the records and then share them publicly...because people protested the killing of George Floyd in what became the largest protest movement in the history of the country?
Is it now legal for all sitting Presidents (maybe elected officials? All candidates?) to illegally breach and tamper with voting equipment and share voting records publicly? Is it legal now in general (for everyone) because of the George Floyd protests? Or is Trump the only one who gets that right? If so, why?
I'm genuinely curious here.
Same for directly asking Secretaries of State to change vote counts, convening fake elector slates who posed as real elector slates to change the Electoral College vote and sending an angry mob to disrupt the Electoral College count all for the purpose of undoing an election after all legal channels failed.
Moving forward, what are the specific circumstances where these things are legal and acceptable? Obviously you feel like they were legal and acceptable for Trump. Are you asking for a specific carve out for him? If not, if you're applying justice fairly, when does this carve out apply generally? Does Biden get to do these things if he loses the election?
Can you acknowledge that many of what you call George Floyd protests were riots? I called January 6th a riot and denounce that action of anything beyond legal peaceful protests. I won’t ask you to acknowledge that many leftist politicians encouraged and allegedly funded these violent riots, but calling them what they were would go a long way for PC relations.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Remind us again when George Floyd died?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbnEiTsiqtA
I recall saying, on that very day, that the 2017 DC riots marked the end of the peaceful transfer of power.
Now crawl back to your hole.
https://media.tenor.com/pmy7PIO30s0A...p-khaleesi.gif
The argument you've presented seems to be raising concerns about a perceived inconsistency in the treatment of actions involving election interference, access to voting equipment, and manipulation of voting records, particularly in relation to former President Trump and the George Floyd protests. There are several issues and misunderstandings in this argument:Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
1. **Misrepresentation of the Argument**: The initial argument misrepresents the stance of legality by suggesting that it's being claimed that accessing state voting equipment and sharing voting records is permissible due to the George Floyd protests. However, the actual argument for legality likely has more nuanced reasoning and legal foundations, which are not accurately reflected in this representation.
2. **False Equivalence**: The argument falsely equates the George Floyd protests with actions related to election interference and tampering with voting equipment. These are separate issues with different legal contexts and implications. The protests were about social justice and police reform, while election-related actions involve the integrity of democratic processes.
3. **Complex Legal Issues**: Election laws, tampering with voting equipment, and interfering with the electoral process are complex legal matters. Whether an action is legal or not depends on specific laws, regulations, and the interpretation of the legal system. It's an oversimplification to assert that actions are either fully legal or fully illegal without considering the nuances of the law.
4. **Assumption of Motivation**: The argument assumes motivations behind certain actions, such as asking Secretaries of State to change vote counts or convening fake elector slates. Motivations can be debated and may not be as clear-cut as suggested, making it important to base judgments on evidence rather than assumptions.
5. **Selective Examples**: The argument appears to focus solely on actions attributed to Trump without considering actions taken by other individuals or politicians. A well-rounded analysis would require examining actions taken by multiple actors and evaluating their legality within their respective contexts.
6. **Caricature of Positions**: The argument somewhat caricatures the opposing position by suggesting that someone is claiming actions were legal and acceptable "because of the George Floyd protests." This simplification may not accurately represent the nuanced arguments made by legal experts, scholars, and commentators.
7. **Political Bias**: The argument seems to express a certain degree of political bias by framing the issue in a way that might be intended to provoke a specific response, rather than seeking a genuine understanding of legal principles and interpretations.
In order to engage in a productive and accurate discussion, it's important to address these complexities and nuances, avoid making assumptions, and approach the topic with an open mind to the intricacies of the legal and political landscape.
You were very respectful in your reply. There's no reason for me not to be respectful as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I do think you're letting him off the hook a little easily here with the "no legal obligation" thing. From a liability perspective, if you create a dangerous situation you are actually legally liable if you don't take all appropriate steps to remedy the situation. (or more liable I guess) Also he took an oath of office to faithfully execute the laws and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He was in direct violation of that Oath that day. He absolutely had a legal obligation. (but that's not the same thing as saying he has broken a law with punishment attached)
But getting to the missing information piece. Take this however you will, but here is my two cents:
The worst possible place you can go to get a full sense of how a Democratic President is doing is a place like MSNBC or Huffpost. They have a very clear agenda. You are guaranteed not to get the full picture. (Personally I avoid them like the plague at all times, but you get the point)
By the same token, the worst place you can go to get a full sense of how a Republican President is doing is a place like Fox or Newsmax. They have a very clear agenda. You are guaranteed not to get the full picture.
Right wing sources (publishers and elected officials) are a really bad place to be going for information on Trump, IMO. You may not be using them at all, but in case you are...two cents.
Only if you concede the following:
Hillary had her own classified network in a bathroom illegally - No legal recourse
Hillary and the Democrat Party falsified information and utilized the Justice System to impeach a sitting US President - An act of treason by the way - No legal recourse
Democrats supporting domestic terrorism through monetary donations and release of criminals, resulting in the most destructive riots ever in the history of the United States - No legal recourse
Democrats blatantly sabotaging numerous elections - to include their own Primaries against Bernie Sanders - in coordination with their Media cohorts - No legal recourse
The Biden and Clinton families receiving hundreds of millions from foreign donations for no specific product - No legal recourse
The Democrat Party actively supports, in violation of Federal Law, the illegal immigration and human trafficking of persons across international boundaries.
The Democrat Party actively supports operating on children without Parental Consent, in direct violation of Federal Law.
The Democrat Party actively supports segregation through the creation of "safe spaces" and promotes racial inequity by claiming they would be safer "among their own kind".
Everything stated above is 100% true.
So when I consider the options - Did Trump contest an election vs. the facts above?
I'll go with Trump (not happily, but is what is) over that insanity any day.
The Left claims to care... look at any City that they have full control of over the years... full desolation and despair occurs. The Left are good at talking, they are shit at Policy.
As for the current case against Trump:
I've already posted links and information where the Democrat Party did the exact same thing that he did. I've already posted historical precedents of things that occur when contesting elections.
The Democrats really haven't thought this through - everything they've done to try and stop Trump over the past 7 years - all the lies, slander, and legal attacks... will come back to haunt them. If they convict a former President based on this... do you really think any election moving forward will ever be resolved?
If you're asking me to acknowledge that people died and property was damaged- of course. These are facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
But my response to Shap's post was to explicitly call out that talking about Black Lives Matter protests serves as a distraction from having to fairly evaluate Trump's actions. I'd be undermining my own post if I took the bait on digging into this.
But I'll make you a deal. Answer my questions first. And I will answer yours. Seems only fair.
I wasn't baiting... it's all tied together.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
And as I said... I've already linked the information regarding when the Democrat Party did the EXACT same thing that the Trump team did, regarding contesting an election.
So if you're so up in arms about "Trump is trying to overthrow our Government, blah blah blah"... then you have to say that the Democrat Party is also...
Not sure what you "have to dig into"... as I've already done it and linked it for people to read. Not my fault no one does.
No matter how many times you ring that cowbell dude, ain't nobody believing your nonsense arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
Just shut up... I know you're a fucking moron, and you could care less about facts... or have any semblance of rational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Democrat Party thanks you for your stupidity and blind loyalty. The rest of us? Not so much.
Time4Fun: Please allow me to share minimum information on my passion of guns. I’m writing this sincerely with intentions only to educate you with very basic firearm knowledge so you can communicate about them more effectively.
https://caligunner.com/wp-content/up...15-vs-AK47.jpg
On top you have an AR-15. AR stands for ArmaLite which was the original manufacturing company in the 1960s and 15 is just a model designation. This is by far America’s most popular semiautomatic rifle. Today there are many manufacturers but the core design has been standardized. AR-15s are as American as cherry pie and Chevrolet.
On bottom you have an AK-47. AK stands for “Avtomat Kalashnikova” which the Russian translation is roughly automatic Kalashnikov (the last name of the man credited with the invention) rifle and the 47 part is the introduction model year of 1947. The USSR, Russia, and all of the former Soviet countries made a bajillion of these. They are less popular (but growing and still popular) in the US than the AR-15. The easiest way to recognize one is that banana curved shape magazine.
On both rifles there are military versions that are full automatic machine guns, but civilian models fire only one bullet when you press the trigger. You can go down a rabbit hole on both, but that’s about all you need to know to sound like you know what you’re talking about amongst the broskis. Thanks for reading this.
Shaps, you're not going to find analogous situations to the actions cited in the Georgia indictment because they are without parallel (in our country). No sitting President in US history has ever tried to overthrow the results of an election after the normal, legal channels for contesting it had been exhausted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
This isn't a Republicans vs Democrats thing. It's Trump vs Democracy and the law. You're making this an "Own the Libs" moment when it should be "Am I okay with this becoming the new normal?" moment.
I asked you a very sincere set of questions. You have made it clear that you don't think Trump should be held accountable for trying to overthrow our election after all legal avenues to contest had been exhausted. Specifically you don't think he should be held accountable for breaching our election equipment and records, for sending an armed and angry mob to the Capitol to disrupt the electoral college certification, for organizing false slates of electors to submit alternate votes that could be counted instead of the legally determined ones or for calling elections officials and demanding they change vote counts.
I'm just trying to understand the rules here, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by not assuming you're creating a special carve out just for Trump. (That would be doing everything you're accusing everyone else of doing)
So what are the other situations where these things are acceptable and should be completely legal?
I’m letting him off the hook on the no legal obligation to do so because I’m confident it is factual. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and he has the legal presumption of innocence. And yes, I would hold Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or anyone else to that same standard to the very best of my flawed ability to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I agree on what you said on news source. Unbiased news on either side really doesn’t exist, but I assure you I don’t just consume Fox, NewsMax (eww gross), and ones churning out propaganda. Sometimes I enjoy reading the comments section of both the extreme ends of the political spectrum but I never make one. I also get a frequent real life left of center perspective within my close family, and I’ll leave it at that.
You can ask sincere questions all you want...Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
BUT... when your first statement has already been proven false - and I have linked the information - highlighted the portions - and shown the similarities... you continue to ignore it.
It's not sincere if you don't read the provided historical evidence I've already posted.
That's what's so frustrating with you, Seran, and others of your kind... You ask for something. It's provided. You either A. Don't read it B. Read it and fully ignore it or C. Read it and say it's not the same thing - even though it is.
Everything you're claiming he did - Democrats have also done... so as I've said... you can ignore the Democrats "politics" and "criminalize" Trumps "politics"... but it's only going to lead to ruin.
The rules are simple - Apply the same standard to everyone, or no one. If for one side it's "just politics" and your enemies it's "it's criminal"... then that's not a fair playing field.
The other rule is this - I'm fine playing dirty (I wish more were)... I'm fine if the Democrat Party wants to do politics this way... what I'm not fine with is when people fight back, using their own tactics... then whine like little bitches because someone got up in their face.
You tell me which set of rules you want to play by... and I'll play by them.
How after all these years you're in a much more discussion mode vs. blatant/blind support of the Democrat Party is nice to see... though if I had to guess - some of those things you've supported in the past are starting to affect you somehow in your daily life where you live. That's just a guess, and not really on topic - just more of an observation.
Last time in order also - so I'm thorough in answering your questions:
1. Democrats have over many years "breached election equipment and records" swaying elections at all levels of Government - to much historical evidence to even link.
2. Democrats have multiple times swarmed Federal Buildings and taken them over, created "Autonomous Zones", and threatened verbally and physically assaulted hundreds, if not thousands, of their "opponents" - again to much historical evidence to even link.
3. Democrats have also sent a "false slate of electors" - and again in a previous post I already made the distinction - they were legitimate electors that signed and sent their support for their candidate to the Senate while election results were being contested. Democrats have done the same thing. - Already posted the historical documents in an earlier post.
4. Democrats have numerous times lobbied and stalled proceedings of counting Electoral Votes - and again, I've already posted historical evidence to that point.
So you tell me... if the Democrats have already done, everything they're accusing Trump of - and suddenly that is "criminal"... what have the Democrats been doing all these years?
The rabbit hole being the incredibly inexpensive bump stock which allows even a novice to convert the semi-automatic AR-15 into a fully automatic. Pretending that easy to obtain accessory that most owners also purchase which increases the combat effectiveness of the 'civilian version' into something akin to the military/law enforcement version or the classic AK-47 seems to be your intention. Stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Also, notice the rampant distractions being proffered to draw away from the discussion about soon to be felon cheeto man.
And the retardation continues. A bump stock does not make it a machine gun, only allows you to actuate the trigger faster. It is still, in no way, automatic. Plus, you can't buy those anymore. Next, no matter what the rifle, more people are killed every year with fists, feet, clubs and blunt weapons than by any and all rifles. The only real danger of these and other modern rifles for all you Leftist pieces of crap is that they allow the people to resist your oppression by a tyrannical government. Which means, you can't implement your total government control as long as the people can fight back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You whine about distractions and yet, every time there is another major issue released about Biden, along comes your side with yet another fake indictment of Trump in the largest ever case of election interference in the history of the United States.
Much like your wife does to you at home, you got completely ignored because of your lack of ability to be useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You should just disappear again, it’s something your family has been wanting for a while as well.
My kids aren't 11 and 12 anymore... I'm pretty sure they are safe from Keller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Now see.. THIS is the stuff I really miss from you time4fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
The "armed insurrection" that you leftist lunatics keep saying happened... never did.. but if you say stuff like "BUT TEH POLICE SAW AK-15s AND GLOCKS!" it sorta gives it a little bit of credit? So.. in a city that has basically thrown the 2nd Amendment out the window.. and law enforcement saw all these "AK-15s and Glocks!" all over the place.. and did nothing to stop them. Shouldn't we be discussing why law enforcement allowed guns around the Capitol like that?
So, our law enforcement didn't do their job.. our politicians didn't do their jobs and make sure we were ready for this protest... one thing they ALWAYS seem to get right except on this specific day...
THANK GOD the brave metal detectors stopped this coup in it's tracks!
Metal detectors.. they are the real heros in time4fun's trip down Fantasy Island!
If you see a metal detector today.. maybe give them a hug and thank them for their service.
SPOILER: AK-15... for your story, you should have stuck with either the AR-15 or maybe even the AK-47.
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
THOSE SUPER SCARY AK-15s OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111
Did Trump or did Trump not also tell them to do it peacefully?
You won't answer this because you already know how full of shit you are.
What has you so Joe Pesci?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Was it the mention that a banker is easier to code than a fry cook?
What does a banker really do that has not already been replaced by computers over the past 40 years?
^ lolQuote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
There you go lying again.
Source: Your posting history
Oh, you mean those metal detectors that Trump ordered the Secret Service to take down and to stop confiscating firearms? You're such an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You forgot to make this post on your alt Stop It.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Bump stocks suck. It’s really not the same at all as select fire full auto. If you really want me to explain why I can go into further detail, but a bump stock relies on a mechanical motion to manipulate the trigger. The rate of fire is much less and accuracy really goes to shit because the rifle is bouncing all over the place. You can achieve the same thing without a bump stock if you know what you’re doing.
Anyways…the issue at hand with that is the ATF making and reinterpreting law. That is not their function. Trump fucked that up, and now today it opened the door for the ATF (under direction from Biden) to redefine short barreled rifles and other NFA items. Trump isn’t an opponent of 2A, but he is no friend either.
So you're saying that with a bump stock, you can just hold down the trigger and the gun will keep firing? Because that's how full-auto works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
However, that's not how bump stocks work, you fucking dumbass.
Stop It is macguyver. Not that it means much due to how low Seran sets the bar, but he's 9949274272854285490x smarter than Seran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
What kind of banker are we talking about here? A retail consumer banker in a branch? A Wall Street investment banker? A corporate banker with expertise in certain industries? I’m sure they could all be replaced no doubt, but their function and code for AI would be much different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
You sure? He ended the post with the famous Stop It line and it seemed to have a similar flow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Also, I am beginning to suspect that more than one person logs into Seran. Sometimes, rarely, he can post something intelligent and absent of his trademark grammar errors.
A lot of people traveled that day to see Trump. Many Republicans tend to have guns and carry one on their body 24/7. That’s the norm in many red states. You don’t think it’s possible that the motivation of Trump telling security to ease up on the gun scanning & confiscation was simply to let all those MAGA folks in to his party / speech? He does have a huge ego after all and deeply cares about his audience being full.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I've been saying for a while that Ashliana posts from Seran's account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I was mostly joking, but sometimes I'm not so sure...
Stop It has also called out Seran for being a retard, and Seran isn't capable of that sort of thinking in an attempt to mask a 2nd account, so there's that.
Now that you say that, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
My bad Seran.
Hey now, those selfless metal detectors.. according to time4fun's "Fun time With Our Imagination Story Time With time4fun" story, they were the unsung heros of "The Armed Insurrection And Threat To Everything We Hold Dear of January 6th"Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Also, do you have a cite source that says Trump ordered law enforcement to stop confiscating illegal firearms in the DC area? I would love to see that.
I mean, if you are going to make shit up like time4fun.. do it with some fucking flare and imagination. Just spouting shit like you did, without a backstory or anything.. is just so boring.
Maybe time4fun can take you under "her" wing and show you a real way to sell it.
Be better, Seran.
You should be apologizing to Stop It. Anyone would be insulted if someone thought they were Seran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
In Oakland CA, violent crime is really getting out of control. The police chief is urging citizens NOT to arm themselves in response. If you are being beaten to death and/or see your business being looted, just use an air horn to alert the authorities…Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
https://abc7news.com/amp/oakland-chi...tack/10357973/
My comment wasn’t directed at you at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
And “banker, is an extremely generic term in the industry. AI won’t be able to replace interpersonal skills.
No, because no President in their right mind allows armed fanatics on Whitehouse grounds. The last time anything remotely similar was the British seizing the Whitehouse and burning part of it down. The reason why Trump didn't want his people disarmed was for the very reason laid out by the special prosecutor, an armed mob creating case and disrupting the electoral college vote certification would have seen him keeping power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I'm guessing some rich Bay Area socialite is confusing armed criminals with the bears that raid the multi-million dollar second home they visit twice a year up in Lake Tahoe. Air horns indeed, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
They already can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
You are incorrect as usual. Washington DC didn't make it illegal to carry guns until Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. There were plenty of protests in DC between 1812 and 1975 and I'm certain there were plenty of people carrying firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Still waiting for that cite where Trump ordered that law enforcement do not detain anyone who was illegally carrying a firearm.Quote:
The reason why Trump didn't want his people disarmed was for the very reason laid out by the special prosecutor, an armed mob creating case and disrupting the electoral college vote certification would have seen him keeping power.
Stupidity isn't a rich person only trait. It infects all sorts of social statuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Look in the mirror for a perfect example of a destitute person who is extremely stupid.
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Oh ok, lets do this. I've see the filtered and photoshopped picture of your wife. You really shouldn't throw stones.
And what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Non filtered and non photoshopped photos of my wife.
https://i.imgur.com/7xr7OQ1.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/8o2e7hm.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ZVuD2H6.jpg
At the beach today.
https://i.imgur.com/ROnTIAE.jpg
Let’s see your wife. Maybe you shouldn’t be throwing stones. Just save yourself the embarrassment and disappear.
Now that she is living in America, you must buy her big full voluptuous breasts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Kidding. Beautiful family & congratulations.
Oh god, she’s asked for them already!Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
pics for proof never end well, i'd take them down. Nevermind i just saw someone already posted it again as a reply.
Nah, she doesn’t care, her photos are all over instagram already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realk
She’s beautiful as is. Huge knockers will make her look redonkculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Thanks! Yeah her friend got hers done like 6 months ago, now she won’t stop asking for a set.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seizer
Based on the below post by Trump last night, you can tell that he's been thinking about how he could flee the country. He's even figured out what plane to use.
Quote:
The failed District Attorney of Fulton County (Atlanta), Fani Willis, insisted on a $200,000 Bond from me. I assume, therefore, that she thought I was a “flight” risk - I’d fly far away, maybe to Russia, Russia, Russia, share a gold domed suite with Vladimir, never to be seen or heard from again. Would I be able to take my very “understated” airplane with the gold TRUMP affixed for all to see. Probably not, I’d be much better off flying commercial - I’m sure nobody would recognize me!
I assume you are being sarcastic but it’s hard to tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
There is not any place in this world Trump could go to where he would never be seen or heard from again.
With Putin's medical problems and failing economy and PM Netanyahu under indictment himself, Trump is left with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, either I'm sure will be happy to receive Trump. Heck with the billion dollar investment by the Saudi royal family in the Trump brand through Jared, I'm sure they'll be happy to invest more in a felon fleeing justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Surely you've heard of plastic surgery. Trump is certainly aware of it. With all the money he has raised, he could make himself look like anybody and then disappear into the crowd. It would be the greatest con in the history of humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
He is. However, leftist retards won't be able to pick up on this because their brains can't process stuff like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
See what I mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. And you guys say conservatives are the ones wearing tin hats & coming up with crazy conspiracy theories…Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Not sarcastic, just retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
And only a retard would buy it.
Case.In.Point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Imagine still thinking that Russia's economy is somehow a win over Ukrainian losses and lost American treasure. Ukraine has lost upwards of 500,000 men and there's no end in sight. Russia still has 4 times the army the Ukraine has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
The Russian economy is an absolute train wreck right now.
https://i.imgur.com/i7PHkQO.jpg
This was last year, around $250k, this car now cost $300k, while in the states it’s about $84k
Every day products are 4x to 5x price, with worst quality, while salaries are the same.
Average salary in Moscow pre-war, 60,000 rubles($1000) now it’s 60,000 rubles($635)
Because of the inability to get chips and what more electronics are now extremely overpriced, with iPhones selling for almost $4,000, a can of coke cost $10
Only two things haven’t gone up in prices, vodka and potatoes.
Imagine being so dumb you think the sole measure of the Russian leader's medical problems or the strength of the Russian is by how many losses they've inflicted as the invader of an innocent country. Tsk Tsk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Since the exchange rate looks really favorable right now, can you talk to these Russians for me? I’d like to arrange I buy a fuck ton of Kalashnikov Concern (formerly known as Иже́вский машинострои́тельный Заво́д) rifles for my personal collection. We’ll start small and I’ll arrange to buy 5x each of AK-12, AK-15, AK-19, and AK-308s. Due to our pesky import laws, I need them to come from a neighboring country (preferably NATO but Ukraine works) and appear that they are the country of origin. I’ll find a firearms importer state side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
(Fuck you ATF it’s a gahdamned joke…but feel free to PM me).
Imagine being so dumb you think Trump is going to flee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Hey, I just spoke to my wife for you, as she used to be a lawyer for the Russian mob, she’s going to make some calls and see what she can do for you, they can probably do it through the UAE, I’ll let you know in a few days what she can do, if anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I just got in an argument with my wife, I told her it’s fucked up that the Russians are just leaving their dead on the field, and charging families money to return them, I told her America doesn’t do that shit, every branch has some kind of motto of leave no man behind, and she just can’t understand why they would risk their lives to go back and get dead soldiers, or wounded soldiers that have little chance of survival.
Tell her it is because the men that died or wounded deserve it. Their families need closure and proper burial rights. It’s a human thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Yeah I told her, I also said it’s a morale boost for soldiers as well, knowing that their brothers will do everything to get them back. She thinks it’s western bullshit lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Imagine voting for this clown? Conservatives hated Barack Obama and minorities so much they voted for this scumbag.
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/...676428195?s=20
But, he only hires the best of the best, and he knows people better than anyone else ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
Imagine being so fucking retarded that the only reason your tiny, miniscule "brain" can come up with to vote for Trump is that Conservatives hated Barack Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
RETARD SPOILER: Barack Obama wasn't running against Trump.
Also: I voted for Trump, not because I hate Barack Obama or minorities.. I hate super sensitive little beta faggots like you and I knew it would get you super upset forever when he was elected. I can't wait to see what you do if he's reelected.
I mean we already know Trump is a poor judge of character given how many of his former attorneys, business associates, valets, and close confident have either been convicted, imprisoned, indicted, or are criminal investigation targets. Or it could be Trump is just the most criminal politicians of all time and he deliberately hired these people with the express intent of committing felonies to increase his personal wealth and power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Imagine how disliked Biden must be that polls indicate it’s a toss up who would win today between Trump (with all of the indictments) vs Biden for 2024.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
CNN: Republican voters think Trump is electable. They may be right
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/19/polit...den/index.html
Edit: it’s a sad story for America whichever side of the political spectrum you fall on.
Damn son, you didn't look at the poll. 45% Biden vs 36% for Trump is not a toss up based on the polling data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
8/10: If each of the following individuals were their party’s nominee for president in 2024, would you definitely support, probably support, probably NOT support or definitely NOT support them?
Joe Biden: 45% definetly would support, 43% definetly would not support.
Donald Trump: 36% definetly would suport, 63%, definitely would not support.
You are an idiot. That poll and question is not even remotely in the same realm as a head to head comparison of who would you vote for in the general election. Read the article I posted. Or, if you want more, these are several polls conducted on the general election. In most polls conducted this year, Trump has a lead over Biden. That has reduced to being a toss up. Biden may possibly be 1 point ahead from the most recent I’ve seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...2024/national/
Yeah I wouldn't put too much stock in this. The % of persuadable voters in this is massive for both candidates. This isn't the same thing as asking people whom they would actually vote for if forced to make a decision (including the decision to not vote at all). And that explains why it's so wildly out of sync with the general election polling that has been coming out the last couple of months. Most of that has either Biden or Trump winning by some amount that's squarely within the margin of error. The battleground state polling, in particular, is definitely moving in the right direction for Trump and the wrong direction for Biden. (Though that shifts a lot and will continue to)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You're leaving out the part where Trump, his allies and the conservative media universe have intentionally poisoned the well with the demonstrably false narrative that Biden's win is illegitimate. About 30% of the registered voters in this country (a few on this forum) will never believe that Biden won the election legitimately despite the clear polling before the election, having the same amount of evidence for his win as we've had for every other Presidential election results and the glaring lack of any evidence of widespread irregularities that could even come close to altering the outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
It's a dangerous and corrosive tactic that we should neither be validating nor ignoring. On this alone Trump has proven he is unfit for office. His willingness to sacrifice a 250 year old democracy for his own petty desires is an affront to everything our Constitution stands for.
I think Biden’s approval rating & how he would fare in a general election has more to do with his performance, policies, and especially age (cognitive decline). I say that because he isn’t particularly popular within his own party.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
People care about economics. My prediction is if the economy is in a decent place November of 2024, Biden will win. If it is not, he is going to lose.
Maybe it is Western BS. I wouldn’t know. I read a lot of history but largely ignorant in experiencing foreign cultures and customs first hand. Don’t they bury people in Russia? If it were her brother/father/you/whatever fighting in that war, wouldn’t it be important to her that she hear the truth of what happened & put the body to rest in accordance with whatever her religion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Eastern Orthodox is still a big thing in Russia, is it not? I know communism turned a lot of people away from religion but I thought Russia is still largely Christian.
I'll be surprised if Biden is the candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Yeah they keep saying that about both Trump & Biden, but I’m beginning to suspect it likely that we have a rematch. If the Democratic Party is going to push him out, they need to do it sooner rather than later for primary season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
They aren't going to push him out. If he drops out it will be because he's either too old or dead. I'd like to see both front runners step away and let some younger candidates run.
Since the beginning of the country, incumbent Presidents seeking reelection have won 71% of the time. During the last 50 years, that percentage has been just 56%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Incumbents in Last 50 Years Who Lost Reelection:
38 Gerald R. Ford*
39 Jimmy Carter
41 George H.W. Bush
45 Donald J. Trump
* Ford was never elected in the first place.
Incumbents in Last 50 Years Who Won Reelection:
37 Richard M. Nixon
40 Ronald Reagan
42 Bill Clinton
43 George W. Bush
44 Barack Obama
Only one person has been elected to non-consecutive terms, as Trump hopes to be in 2024. I have not made a list of all who have attempted it.
22 Grover Cleveland
24 Grover Cleveland
Would you like to know the source of the above info? It's all from ClydeR.
Dude don't pretend that the poll number cited in the article you linked said something other than what they do and you won't get called out. Linking an entirely different poll to make your argument because your prior source didn't pan out is disingenuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Problem is.. if they push him out, they have to push Harris out first.. because as bad as the Biden Presidency has been.. a Harris Presidency would be far worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet