╌>

Trump supporters call for riots and violent retribution after verdict

  
Via:  sandy-2021492  •  one month ago  •  381 comments


Trump supporters call for riots and violent retribution after verdict
 

Sponsored by group The Reality Show

The Reality Show


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


May 31 - Supporters of former President Donald Trump, enraged by his conviction on 34 felony counts by a New York jury, flooded pro-Trump websites with calls for riots, revolution and violent retribution. After Trump became the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime, his supporters responded with dozens of violent online posts, according to a Reuters review of comments on three Trump-aligned websites: the former president's own Truth Social platform, Patriots.Win and the Gateway Pundit. Some called for attacks on jurors, the execution of the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, or outright civil war and armed insurrection. “Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants. On Gateway Pundit, one poster suggested shooting liberals after the verdict. “Time to start capping some leftys,” said the post. “This cannot be fixed by voting." Threats of violence and intimidating rhetoric soared after Trump lost the 2020 election and falsely claimed the vote was stolen. As he campaigns for a second White House term, Trump has baselessly cast the judges and prosecutors in his trials as corrupt tools of the Biden administration, intent on sabotaging his White House bid.


visit seeded article for remaining content

Red Box Rules

Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.  Any use of the term "Brandon", or any variation thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted.


Article is LOCKED by moderator [sandy-2021492]
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1  seeder  sandy-2021492    one month ago
On Gateway Pundit, one poster suggested shooting liberals after the verdict. “Time to start capping some leftys,” said the post. “This cannot be fixed by voting."
 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    one month ago

the trump or death flag being flown out in front of trump tower has to be gratifying to that unamerican and autocratic POS...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.1  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @1.1    one month ago

I'm sure it strokes his ego, bigly.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.1    one month ago

Their 'egos' sure require a lot of stroking

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.2    one month ago

... short strokes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.3    one month ago

but of course -lol

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.3    one month ago

that's why they're always so angry - like the former 'president' - they feel cheated for getting the short stick

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    one month ago

That was the comment that was so frightening to me Sandy.  And it's claimed that the left/democrats/progressives are the violent ones by these scum.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    one month ago

Thank you for posting this.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.3.1  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tessylo @1.3    one month ago

Credit goes to you for finding it, Tessy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3.1    one month ago

Why is it that violence is always the first resort with the 'right'?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.3.3  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.2    one month ago

To be fair, I don't think it is for the vast majority.

But Trump has a knack for motivating the worst of his extremist supporters to commit violence for him.

It's sad, really.  They risk a lot for him, and he risks practically nothing.  And then, when they're sitting in jail, or out on bail, expecting a pardon from their ringleader...crickets. 

And then the inauguration went on, anyway.  They accomplished nothing except to make criminals of themselves, for a criminal who doesn't give two shits about them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3.3    one month ago

True, for his cult, the hard core, most definitely.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.4  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    one month ago

How many riots have gone down?

How many buildings have been looted/burned?

How many people have been shot and killed as a direct result of the verdicts?

Must have been leftys that posted that to stir up shit since they are the ones most familiar with doing everything above.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  bugsy @1.4    one month ago

I believe this is what writers call "the pregnant pause."

Enjoy your evening.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.4.3  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @1.4    one month ago
Must have been leftys that posted that

You have proof of that?  Or was that just an unfounded allegation?

I see you forget January 6th.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.4.4  Ronin2  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.3    one month ago

So answer the question.

Where are all of the riots by pro Trump supporters?

Seems you forgot the Summer of Love and the Pro Hamas riots.

Jan 6th was one damn day; and not even a full day of rioting at that.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.4.5  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.4    one month ago

Do not presume to give orders.  I never said there were riots.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.6  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.4    one month ago

'and not even a full day of rioting at that'

so no biggie, right?

What the fuck???????????????

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.4.7  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.5    one month ago
I never said there were riots.

Never said you did. The point is conservatives do not destroy property every time something does not go their way, much like many on the left do.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.4.8  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @1.4.7    one month ago

Except many did, on January 6th, so your statement is false.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.4.9  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.3    one month ago
I see you forget January 6th.

I see you have forgotten the actions of the left in 2016 and early 2017 when Hillary lost. The riots then were happening nation wide and for much longer than what occured in January 6. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.4.10  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.9    one month ago

I never said a word about the left.

bugsy, however, made a false statement about conservatives.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.4.11  arkpdx  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.4    one month ago

Wasn't even a whole day. It was only about three or four hours. Liberal riots go on for weeks.and cause much more damage. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.4.12  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.10    one month ago
bugsy, however, made a false statement about conservatives.

That is false. Re read what I said.

The point is conservatives do not destroy property every time something does not go their way, much like many on the left do.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.4.13  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @1.4.12    one month ago

Other pro-Trump protesters joined in on telling the anti-Trump protester to leave, with one of them grabbing and ripping up one of the anti-Trump signs

This was at the Trump trial.  Trump supporters got violent, and destroyed property.  As reported by Fox News.

And, as the article states, it's Trump supporters calling for violence.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.14  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.4.12    one month ago
The point is conservatives do not destroy property every time something does not go their way, much like many on the left do.

So you hold that 'conservatives' destroy property on certain occasions.

But you believe 'the left' does it every time something does not go their way.

What a bizarre alternate reality you have devised.

Another point.   Why is it that some are constantly viewing reality in terms of groups (labels)?   Everything to some is a stereotype.   'Conservatives' behave one way.  'Liberals' behave some other way.  'The left' (whatever you have imagined that to be) behaves a certain way too.

That is naive and faulty.   All conservatives do NOT have the same mind and same behavior.   Same for 'the left'.   Stereotypes are an excellent way to grossly oversimplify reality and impose confirmation bias through the use of labels.    

It is cheap and errant analysis which leads to routinely getting things wrong.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.4.15  JBB  replied to  bugsy @1.4.12    one month ago

Are you implying that liberal protests nearly always turn violent and destructive or were ever as big and as impactful as was Trump's January 6th 2021, "Save The Steal Rally and Insurrection"? GOOH!

original

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.4.16  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.13    one month ago
Trump supporters got violent, and destroyed property

OOOOOHHHH...tore a sign up. Such a violent act s/.  Maybe that person should have attempted to burn down the courthouse to be on par with a liberal.

"it's Trump supporters calling for violence."

Calling for and acting on it are two different things. The left is well known for the latter.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.4.17  bugsy  replied to  JBB @1.4.15    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.4.18  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.14    one month ago
So you hold that 'conservatives' destroy property on certain occasions.

Very good

"But you believe 'the left' does it every time something does not go their way."

Pretty much. Can't think of any time they haven't.

"What a bizarre alternate reality you have devised."

The bizarre reality is not seeing that reality that is right in front of their faces.

"All conservatives do NOT have the same mind and same behavior.   Same for 'the left'.

Very good. That is why I did not say "all".

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.4.19  JBB  replied to  bugsy @1.4.16    one month ago

Your prejudices and outdated preconceived notions about hippies and liberals and any unfounded fear of ANTIFA, BLM and PETA (/s) have zero zip nada nothing to do with the very real threats posed to Trump's judge and jury now being threatened by violent MAGA!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.20  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @1.4.18    one month ago
The bizarre reality is not seeing that reality that is right in front of their faces.

trump = convicted felon

reality that is right in front of trumpsters faces...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.4.21  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @1.4.16    one month ago

Was the sign property?

It was.

Was the Capitol building property?

It was.

Reuters recently documented   the most sustained spate of political violence in the United States since a decade of upheaval that began in the late 1960s. To date, the news organization has identified at least 232 violent incidents fueled by political motives since the storming of the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021. The events range from riots to brawls at political demonstrations to beatings and murders.

The incidents involve violence emanating from across the political spectrum, including dozens of cases of substantial property damage by leftists at political demonstrations. But of the 22 fatal incidents among the total tally, involving the deaths of 44 victims and 11 attackers, most were attributed to assailants, like Aldrich, who expressed beliefs associated with the extreme right, Reuters found.

In 15 of those attacks, in which 38 victims and seven attackers died, the perpetrator had articulated far-right beliefs, many of them targeting racial, sexual or other minorities. Only one fatal incident – the 2022 stabbing of a journalist by a public administrator in Nevada – was carried out by an assailant clearly identified with the left.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.4.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @1.4.15    one month ago

you implying that liberal protests nearly always turn viole

almost Four years to the day progressives attacked the White House injuring dozens of secret service and police…. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.23  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.4.18    one month ago
Pretty much. Can't think of any time they haven't.

Then you have a reality filter that you should lose.

Recently, the SCotUS denied Jack Smith's request to rule on Trump's immunity claims because he predicted this would end up in their laps eventually.   (He was correct.)  The SCotUS required this to first be handled by the DC Court of Appeals.   So, after the lower court ruled (not in Trump's favor), this matter came back to the SCotUS.   Instead of accepting the lower court ruling that of course Trump is not 100% immune, the SCotUS decided now to take the case.   They heard it 6 weeks later and we are still waiting for them to state the obvious:  Trump (no PotUS) is 100% immune from prosecution for his actions while PotUS.

This (I am very disappointed to say) is the SCotUS (which used to be our last bastion of objectivity) intentionally delaying the Jan 6th case just like judge Cannon is intentionally delaying the classified documents case.   Both agents will likely prevail and the US electorate will not know if the GOP nominee is guilty of the crimes outlined in the respective indictments before they consider their vote.

Where is 'the left' rioting and storming buildings (e.g. the Supreme Court building)?   

Here is one recent and critically important case where 'the left' "havent't".

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.4.24  JBB  replied to  bugsy @1.4.12    one month ago

Criminals who still cannot understand the charges against them despite those charges being explained repeatedly to them and sitting though their own trial and being convicted are what?

Insane? Mentally ill? Brain damaged? Total complete bonkers?

What Bugsy? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.4.25  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.4.22    one month ago

Today Sean! Who is advocating violence against who today?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.26  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.11    one month ago

That remark is as moronic as ronin's and it wasn't a riot, it was an armed insurrection incited by the former 'president' who did nothing to stop it - just watched for more than three hours while his incited mob wrought death and destruction

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.27  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.13    one month ago

It's ALWAYS the supporters of the former 'president' calling for violence, including this article.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.28  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.4.27    one month ago

boo hoo hoo, it's all the commie leftist democrats fault that republicans are led by a convicted criminal that's an unamerican scumbag fascist... boo hoo hoo...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.29  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.2    one month ago
I believe this is what writers call "the pregnant pause."

then be a good trumpster and force it's birth...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.6  cjcold  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1    one month ago

Never been to Gateway Pundit. No CoC there?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.6.1  Krishna  replied to  cjcold @1.6    one month ago
Never been to Gateway Pundit. No CoC there?

That brings back memories! I didn't know he was still around...

Long ago I used to be active on Charles Johnson's "Little Green Footballs" site. And often a troll from another site would try to infiltrate and spew hatred-- that was "Gateway Pundit". "Gateway Pundit" was a real nutcase....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    one month ago

The normal people have to stop engaging with these lunatics on forums and social media with the hope they can be "persuaded" by logic, facts, or anything else.  All we can do with them is defeat them at the ballot box and in the court of public opinion .

There are millions of people in this country who are too far gone to be reasoned with.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

[Deleted][]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.2  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago
There are millions of people in this country who are too far gone to be reasoned with.  

Democrats?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  arkpdx @2.2    one month ago

I would say leftists in general.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.2.2  cjcold  replied to  arkpdx @2.2    one month ago

[Removed, member is not the topic][]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago
The normal people have to stop engaging with these lunatics on forums and social media w

Which is why I don't

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.1  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.3    one month ago

but it's fun humiliating the willfully ignorant...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.3.2  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @2.3.1    one month ago

Fun but futile in the long run. 

It's impossible to educate those who are incapable of learning.

The vast majority of conservatives flunked out of various schools.

Their hate of the elite is actually their hate of the educated.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.3.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  cjcold @2.3.2    one month ago

The vast majority of conservatives flunked out of various schools.

Proof?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.4  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago
There are millions of people in this country who are too far gone to be reasoned with. 

Here's a guy that explains why. (Its Instagram-- click on speaker icon on lower right for sound))

Who should you hate?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.5  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago
The normal people have to stop engaging with these lunaticsa on forums and social medi with the hope they can be "persuaded" by logic, facts, or anything else.

So does that mean that you are saying that the folks who engage them on NT are not "The normal people"?

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
3  Thomas    one month ago

From the article:

A spokesperson for Truth Social said, “It’s hard to believe that Reuters, once a respected news service, has fallen so low as to publish such a manipulative, false, defamatory and transparently stupid article as this one purely out of political spite.”

This is the state of MAGA: Paranoid Schizophrenic 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @3    one month ago

Not fair to paranoid schizophrenics - these scum are way outside of the Diagnostic and Statistical Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Disorders, there are volumes to be written regarding this disorder.

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
3.1.1  Thomas  replied to  Tessylo @3.1    one month ago

Psychobabble, Alan Parsons Project

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @3.1    one month ago

Again. Are you talking about Democrats? Sure sounds like it. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2  devangelical  replied to  Thomas @3    one month ago

mass hysteria among the mentally defective...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4  Gsquared    one month ago

Is anyone surprised?   They rioted after he lost the election, too.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
4.1  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gsquared @4    one month ago
Is anyone surprised?

Not especially.  Appalled, but not surprised.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @4    one month ago

my source in DC says that local and federal agencies have a coordinated plan to deal with any insurrectionists post election...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @4.2    one month ago

Of course, after the former 'president' incited failed insurrection and the threats (even HERE, can you fucking believe it??) of another insurrection which the former 'president' has been inciting for HOW MANY YEARS NOW???????????????????????????since he lost bigly????????????????

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @4.2    one month ago

Hope so.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
4.2.3  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @4.2    one month ago

No second try at the Beer Hall Putsch?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.4  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.3    one month ago

the heritage foundation's project 2025 is the blueprint for the 4th reich...

 
 
 
fineline
Freshman Silent
4.2.5  fineline  replied to  devangelical @4.2    one month ago

My source, that little voice in the back of my mind says "be prepared".

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.6  devangelical  replied to  fineline @4.2.5    one month ago

I was a boy scout, until 1 scoutmaster decided give "how to be a man" lessons while the other embezzled all of our dues collected in our camping trip account.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.2.7  Krishna  replied to  devangelical @4.2    one month ago
my source in DC says that local and federal agencies have a coordinated plan to deal with any insurrectionists post election...

Exactly!

In fact, my sources in DC says that your source is correct!

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.3  SteevieGee  replied to  Gsquared @4    one month ago

“One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave,”

- DJT  5/14/24 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
4.3.1  arkpdx  replied to  SteevieGee @4.3    one month ago

Sounds like a good plan. It is a good plan for any foreigner that causes such mayhem and those that are here illegally in the first place. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.3.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  arkpdx @4.3.1    one month ago

Very much agree.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
4.4  arkpdx  replied to  Gsquared @4    one month ago

They did? Where? When? I seem to recall democrats rioting and having screaming fits and the like when Hillary lost. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.4.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  arkpdx @4.4    one month ago

Good Lord. Don't bring that up, you'll really get people all riled up saying that never happened and/or it was all caused by the righties!/sjrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.4.1    one month ago

That's the truth - there were no riots by the lefty's and any violence was right extremist plants.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.4.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @4.4.2    one month ago

If you say so.jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.4.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  arkpdx @4.4    one month ago

See how quickly they have forgotten Portland and the summer of love? Those certainly were not conservatives torching Portland and setting up their free zones.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.4.5  cjcold  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.4.4    one month ago

Actually, it was false flag fascists burning those cars.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
4.4.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  cjcold @4.4.5    one month ago

Proof?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.4.7  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @4.4.5    one month ago

A few of them even burnt themselves up with their own Molotov cocktails and were bitching about liberals in the burn ward. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.4.8  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @4.4.5    one month ago

That's usually the case, as we know cj, that 99.99999999999% of the time, that is the case when Leftists/Democrats/Progressives protest.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.4.9  bugsy  replied to  cjcold @4.4.7    one month ago

Proof of this?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.4.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cjcold @4.4.5    one month ago

And the police precinct and multiple businesses as well? And who set up the illegal free zones as well?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.4.11  Krishna  replied to  arkpdx @4.4    one month ago
They did? Where?

"Sources" are saying it!!!

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
4.5  arkpdx  replied to  Gsquared @4    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.6  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @4    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5  Ed-NavDoc    one month ago

A bad move as violence just begets more violence and nobody wins. Those advocating violence need to shut up and let higher courts settle this.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1  devangelical  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5    one month ago
Those advocating violence need to shut up and let higher courts settle this.

no time in the SCOTUS schedule for that now...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @5.1    one month ago

The higher courts settle this?????

Those in the pockets of the wealthy???????????  Excluding those few who are not bought and paid for scum?????   like ginni, I mean clarence, and whatever alito's wife's name is????????????

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    one month ago

Then what is your solution?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    one month ago

they want to put everything they disagree with in front of SCOTUS, now that 6 justices are bought and paid for...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.2    one month ago

Not for the 'higher courts to settle this'

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.4    one month ago

Are you then disagreeing with Joe Biden who said that Trump should be given the opportunity to appeal his conviction? You do understand that any appeal will go to the New York Court of Appeals first. That is considered a higher court than the court that found him guilty. He can also appeal up the ladder, all the way to the Supreme Court if he wants to. That is the hallmark of the American legal system.

Strange that you would disagree with Biden.

President Biden said Friday after former  President Donald Trump  was found guilty in his New York criminal trial "he'll be given the opportunity, as he should, to appeal that decision, just like everyone else has that opportunity." Biden says Trump 'should' have opportunity to appeal conviction, grins and ignores questions | Fox News

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.5    one month ago

I didn't say that.  Don't lie.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.6    one month ago

Yes you did. You stated very clearly :

Not for the 'higher courts to settle this'

The State of New York has three levels. The trial court where Trump was found guilty is a trial court. As Biden said, Trump can appeal that decision to a higher court. Not sure why you disregard this.

The New York court system has three levels:  Trial courts - including the Supreme Courts (unlike in the federal system), the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals , which is the court of last resort (similar to the Supreme Court in the federal system). Judicial Opinions - New York Legal Research - LibGuides at New York University Law Library

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.4    one month ago

You did not answer my question. So what is your solution to settle this, if not the courts?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.7    one month ago

I DID NOT SAY THAT,

DON'T LIE.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.8    one month ago

I don't answer to you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @5.1    one month ago

It's been fucking settled,  The turd is guilty on all counts.  What should the higher courts decide??????????????????????

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.11    one month ago

JFC - the turd is found guilty on 34 counts by a jury of 12 and the former 'president' who has been inciting violence ever since he lost - 1/6 - and continues to incite - his magats call for riots and violence and retribution against the left - because he was found guilty on all 34 counts - and you all want the supreme court to settle what?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.10    one month ago

I merely asked you a reasonable question. I never stated you answered to me. My apologies if that offended you. Have a good evening.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.13    one month ago
My apologies if that offended you

... while you flag her comments.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.13    one month ago

No, you did not.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6  Kavika     one month ago

No worries, they are just some wacko tourists.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @6    one month ago

called to action by a traitor...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @6.1    one month ago

incited

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    one month ago

same difference though, right?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
6.1.3  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @6.1    one month ago

Name one person that has been even indicted for treason much less tried and convicted. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.3    one month ago

It's unprecedented but thanks to your former 'president', not anymore.  He's the first traitor and first to try to overthrow Democracy as 'president'

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
6.1.5  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.4    one month ago

Again show when and where he has been indicted,tried and convicted of treason

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.5    one month ago

How many times must this be explained?

One need not be convicted of treason to qualify as a traitor.

The word ‘traitor’ is a normal English word with colloquial meaning.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
6.1.7  charger 383  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.6    one month ago

Resently, It has been overused and misused so much that it has lost much of the original meaning Like many words now days.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @6.1.7    one month ago

No, it has not.  It fits the former 'president' and all those involved on 1/6 in trying to overturn a free and fair election, an attack on our DEMOCRACY.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  charger 383 @6.1.7    one month ago

The word is in the dictionary and is easily understood.

Trump supporters want to redefine the word to only mean ‘convicted of treason’ as yet another lame defense of the indefensible.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.1.10  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.6    one month ago
The word ‘traitor’ is a normal English word with colloquial meaning.

Correct.  Using the colloquial meaning leaves it up to the individuals opinion.  Almost anyone can be accused of being a traitor using the colloquial definition, even Joe.  That is why it really doesn't mean squat to most level headed folks.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.1.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.9    one month ago
Trump supporters want to redefine the word to only mean ‘convicted of treason’

Oh, you mean the only one that really matters and is not just opinion.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.12  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.9    one month ago
The word is in the dictionary and is easily understood.

... uh, not by some trumpsters apparently...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Let me repeat right here what I have said elsewhere:

Anyone who is a supporter of former President Trump and commits an act of violence against the government will be caught immediately and prosecuted in a way that no other violent protestor ever has. You are all being watched on social media and everywhere else.

Don't do it. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago

Interesting that you give a warning that includes a pre-emptive defense for potentially violent supporters - basically "don't do it because you're being watched and will be persecuted" rather than "don't do it because it's wrong."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1    one month ago
"don't do it because it's wrong."

We have seen plenty that was morally wrong in the past week.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.2  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    one month ago

So, upholding the law = immoral.

Engaging in violence because the law has been upheld = not immoral.

Noted.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.2    one month ago
So, upholding the law = immoral.

When the conviction is overturned (it is not if), what will you say about the morality of that DA and judge then?

Will you finally admit they committed a terrible wrong that has undermined the justice system?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    one month ago
When the conviction is overturned (it is not if), what will you say about the morality of that DA and judge then?

When the conviction is NOT overturned (it is not if), what will you say about the morality of the appellate courts and Supreme Court, if it gets there, for not ruling as you wish?  That would be interesting to know.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.5  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    one month ago

No.  Becaue it wasn't.  There were laws.  He broke them.  He was convicted of breaking them.  Trump is not above the law.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.5    one month ago
ump is not above the law.

There's a concept. Above the law. Let's take Trump out of it to calm people down. 

Imagine a world  where "judges" are given power to enforce vague, elastic rules that are almost entirely discretionary and subjective.  The judges are very loyal to their partisan team while claiming to be objective. They use their powers to charge any behavior that is even an arguably an infraction by those not on their team. The Judges only charge  the most  egregious, inarguable violations by their own team. Some members of the team are so protected that they are never cited, no matter how blatantly they violate the rules.  When the judges do cite their own team they then charge them to the least extent possible.  An objective study of the  numbers of citations demonstrates a clear bias, with judges either only citing members of the other team or a token amount  so no objective person can  dispute the lopsided nature of justice in this world.

So , in this world, when the judges charge their opponents with subjective violations with no objective standards  while ignoring similar and much more egregious  behavior from their own team, are they actually  showing that that their opponents aren't above the law, or are they just engaging in unequal justice? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.6    one month ago

Why would we take the former 'president' out of this?

His magats - he has been inciting his magats - ever since he lost the presidency the first time and now since justice has been served for once against his big fat crooked ass, 'trump supporters call for riots and violent retribution after verdict'

and now some are saying - like with all the right wing violence that is supported and incited and enabled by the former 'president' that it's leftys

We leftys aren't calling for the death of the righties

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.6    one month ago

What the huh is that rambling nonsensical garbage?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    one month ago

How has a terrible wrong been committed when justice is served?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    one month ago

Who is this 'we' you keep speaking of????????????

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.11  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.6    one month ago

It wasn't vague, Sean.  I know you choose to think so, but it is an easily-read, easily-interpreted law.  And he broke it.  And was convicted of doing so.  The prosecution presented the evidence, the evidence persuaded the jury, and the law applied to Trump's actions.

The judge didn't charge Trump.  He presided over the trial.

Trump is a convicted felon, in violation of the law multiple times.  Why do you object to the law being upheld?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.11    one month ago

It wasn't vague, Sean

Of course it is, which is why New York has never prosecuted anyone under it before despite countless opportunities. Elastic, subjective laws let the Javert's of the world run rampant and wield what power they have to enforce personal and political vendettas.  That's indisputable.  

o, but it is an easily-read, easily-interpreted law.

The fact that not a single progressive here was able to even correctly articulate the prosecution's theory (until today) as to what crime Trump committed no matter how many times they were asked and given that information belies that point. 

hy do you object to the law being upheld?

I support just laws being upheld and  object to the  unequal application of badly written  ones. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.1.13  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.11    one month ago
It wasn't vague, Sean

So what exactly was the felony he was charged with?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.14  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @7.1.13    one month ago

This information has been provided multiple times across the site.  Asking for what has already been provided is trolling, and further requests will be deleted as such.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.15  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.12    one month ago

Sorry you think it's difficult to read, Sean.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.15    one month ago

orry you think it's difficult to read, Sean.

Lol.  A perfect example of my point.  thanks. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.17  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.16    one month ago

I'm not the only one who thinks so, Sean.

"I think it's very smart of prosecutors to use this state law, whether it's been used before or not," said Jeffrey M. Wice, who teaches state election law at New York Law School.

Wice noted that two judges — Merchan and Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, a Manhattan federal judge who rejected   Trump's attempt to move the hush-money case   to federal court — upheld the use of 17-152 in this case.

" It's a solid statute and very straightforward ," Wice said. "Just as we have to expect the unexpected from Donald Trump, we have to also expect the unexpected from prosecutors and the jury."

You repeatedly saying otherwise doesn't make it so, nor does your objection to its application render it illegitimate.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.17    one month ago

Yeah, you got me:

usiness Insider asked two veteran New York election-law attorneys — one a Republican, the other a Democrat — about the law, also known as "Conspiracy to promote or prevent election."

Neither one could recall a single time when it had been prosecuted.

"I've never heard of it actually being used, and I've practiced election law for 53 years," Brooklyn attorney and former Democratic NY state Sen. Martin Connor said of section 17-152.

"I would be shocked — really shocked — if you could find anybody who can give you an example where this section was prosecuted," agreed Joseph T. Burns, attorney for the Erie County Republican Committee in Buffalo, New York.

"I would be absolutely floored," Burns continued, "if you could find anyone prosecuting this in the last 40 years."

Two highly respected law professors specializing in New York election law said the same.

Neither could cite a time when 17-152 — a misdemeanor that's been on the state's election law books since at least the mid-1970s — had been used.

So another link that confirms what I've said.  It's never been used to prosecute anyone in the history of the state despite countless opportunities. So much for equal justice. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.19  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.18    one month ago

The law is on the books and enforceable.  If it really bothers you that much, you should petition to get it overturned.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.19    one month ago
If it really bothers you that much, you should petition to get it overturned

Why? that's what going to happen during the appeal process.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.21  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.20    one month ago

They're going to overturn the law itself?

On what basis?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.21    one month ago
hey're going to overturn the law itself?

Vagueness, overbreadth 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.23  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.22    one month ago

According to you.  Sorry, that's not enough.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.24  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    one month ago

I believe the term/s is potential  "prosecutorial misconduct" on the part of DA Alvin Bragg and the presiding judge.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.25  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    one month ago
Will you finally admit they committed a terrible wrong that has undermined the justice system?

when will trumpsters admit their hero is a common criminal?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.1.26  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.14    one month ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.27  JBB  replied to  devangelical @7.1.25    one month ago

Remember Al Capone was a first time nonviolent offender whose only conviction was a politically motivated tax charge that nobody else would probably ever even be prosecuted for! Am I right?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
7.1.28  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @7.1.13    one month ago

So what exactly was the felony he was charged with?

You still haven't figured that out? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.24    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.30  Split Personality  replied to  JBB @7.1.27    one month ago

Yes I have reminded quite a few people of the comparisons to Al Capone and the governments failures to 

convict him for murder, bootlegging, false bookkeeping before finally putting together what amounted to just

tax evasion based on his own bragging and attempts to cut a deal on the taxes.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.31  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.18    one month ago
So another link that confirms what I've said. 

It may confirm what you believe but not what you said.

It's never been used to prosecute anyone in the history of the state despite countless opportunities.

You should not state what you cannot prove.  What year was the law enacted and why?  It wasn't written as casually or as easily as a murder statue. Obviously some group of legislators thought it a good law and a Governor signed it.

So much for equal justice. 

SMH

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.32  JBB  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.30    one month ago

Some memes really do say thousands of words. This one does!

original

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.33  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.31    one month ago

 

You should not state what you cannot prove

Of course I can.  It’s been posted any number of times by numerous authorities, including those cited  by Sandy above.  It’s basic knowledge.

Feel free to prove me, and every legal authority that’s commented on the case,  wrong. . 

Obviously some group of legislators thought it a good law and a Governor signed it.

so what? That’s true of Jim crow laws and every other law. That has zero to do with anything I wrote and has no relevance.

It’s simple, if I’m wrong prove it by citing the case. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.34  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.33    one month ago

Once again, there is a term, a legal defense, for those poor damaged individuals who cannot understand the crimes they were indicated for, are being tried for and wete convicted of commiting. It is called, "Innocent By Reason Of Insanity!

Butt, that prevents Trump from running!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.35  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @7.1.34    one month ago

He's not Biden. The prosecutor actually found him competent. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.36  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.35    one month ago
While the MAGAfied GOP objects to efforts to hold him legally accountable for his actions, vanishingly few deny that he took those actions. They know (because there’s a tape) that he made the call to find the phantom votes in Georgia; they know he cheats on his taxes; they know that he has contempt for women; they know he tried to derail the certification of the election; and they know that he took the documents and refused to give them back. They know that almost every word out of his mouth is a lie.

Trump’s Republican allies don’t want him held legally accountable for any of that. But they know he did it all. And they are okay with it.

What the GOP is NOT Saying - by Charlie Sykes (substack.com)

You seem to think that this vile human being can be put back in office and all will be right with the world. It is not going to be like that. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.37  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.35    one month ago

Yet you don't understand Trump's charges!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.38  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @7.1.37    one month ago

Now that's funny. 

Feel free to tell me what I've gotten wrong. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.39  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.36    one month ago

they know that he has contempt for women

Even if that is true, what crime is having "contempt for women"

This is nuts. 

 seem to think that this vile human being can be put back in office and all will be right with the world. It is not going to be like that.

You seem to think engaging in unprecedented  lawfare to put another vile human (who's also senile) back in office will make all right with the world. Sorry. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.40  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.39    one month ago
This is nuts. 

Should someone who has "contempt for women" be president of the United States ?  Lets call that a yes or no question. 

The hush money case has been considered to be the weakest of the four criminal cases, yet he was convicted in a day and a half of jury deliberation. You know why? BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE !  He did it.  When he is convicted in the other three cases you will have a new set of excuses.  Lawfare 2.0, 3.0 ,and 4.0,  I supppose. 

Meanwhile Trump is the same piece of shit he is every day of his life.  

You dont get it. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.41  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.40    one month ago
Should someone who has "contempt for women" be president of the United States ?  Lets call that a yes or no question. 

Of course not. But you posted a pundit claiming that having "contempt for women" is a crime and that they should be  "legally accountable" for it.

What crime is contempt for women?

 BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE !  He did it

Of course they aren't. Nothing he did was illegal. That's the issue. 

hen he is convicted in the other three cases

But by convicting him in a bullshit case that was cobbled together just to "get" him, Democrats have undercut the legitimacy of those prosecutions. That's just common sense.  And by not prosecuting Hillary Clinton or Biden for mishandling classified documents while prosecuting Trump for the same crime, they'll just make that impression stronger.

Prosecuting a political opponent should be done for legitimate crimes where selective prosecution isn't an issue.

Democrats have completely screwed that up. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.42  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.41    one month ago
Nothing he did was illegal.

That's a false statement.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.43  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.41    one month ago
The New York trial spotlights the sleazy world of Trumpism. And, whether or not his conspiracy constitutes a felony (it did), it was a remarkable reminder of the man’s character and his fitness for office. The cheating, the lies, the threats, the smears, the payoffs, the fraud, the coverups, the corruption.

You seem to think that none of this means anything because you find problems with how he was prosecuted in New York. 

Fuck that. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.44  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.42    one month ago
hat's a false statement.

Nope, and a competent court  will show that. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.45  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.43    one month ago
se you find problems with how he was prosecuted in New York

When we are talking about why he was prosecuted in New York, that's all that matters. 

Under our system, you aren't supposed to get convicted of a crime because your are a  bad guy.    

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.46  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.45    one month ago

He was prosecuted in New York because he is a criminal.  It is the tip of the iceberg.

But you will put him back in office. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.47  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.44    one month ago

So you keep saying, but the only reason you can come up with is "I don't like it!  It's not fair!"

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.48  JBB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.47    one month ago

Yes and everyone knows, "Ignorance of the law is no defense".

Not being able to understand the law is mental incompetence.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.49  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.47    one month ago
ut the only reason you can come up with is "I don't like it!  It's not fair!"

That's on you if that's what you believe.

You just gave up a thumbs up to a claim that Trump wasn't charged with conspiracy, so.....

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.50  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @7.1.48    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.51  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.49    one month ago

The law has been shown to you over and over.  You don't even disagree that he falsified business records, as far as I can tell, and that falsification is illegal in and of itself.

Are you telling us that he didn't participate in the falsification of business records, Sean?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.52  JBB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.51    one month ago

Yes, and in every single incidence falsifying those businesses records required that Trump conspire with others and order specific crimes be committed by others with Trump's full knowledge!

original

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.53  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.51    one month ago
The law has been shown to you over and over

No shit. yet you gave up a thumbs up to a claim that Trump wasn't charged with conspiracy yet, you yourself, posted the specific conspiracy statute, so I'm not sure if you are just trolling, and when  you think my objections boil down to "I don't like it," it make me think  I'm wasting time bothering to respond. 

rticipate in the falsification of business records, Sean?

I don't think the prosecution proved Trump had that the necessary intent to defraud by creating the records (even if they are false, which is arguable)

 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.54  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @7.1.52    one month ago
businesses records required that Trump conspire with others and order specific crimes be committed by others with Trump's full knowledge!

Lol. No they don't.

[]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.55  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.53    one month ago
I don't think the prosecution proved Trump had that the necessary intent to defraud by creating the records (even if they are false, which is arguable)

This is just laughable at this point.

Why in the world do you think the payment to Daniels was made by Cohen, instead of Trump, the Trump Foundation, or his campaign directly?

To hide the source of the payments, of course.  That's defrauding, intentionally.

Really, the lengths you have to go to in order to deny the truth are absurd.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.56  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.33    one month ago
You should not state what you cannot prove Of course I can.

Thanks for acknowledging what we have all seen week in and week out.

You quote two opinions from an unlinked article and claim them to be factual proof that there was never a case based on this law and two unnamed professors who professed to agree.

Feel free to prove me, and every legal authority that’s commented on the case,  wrong. . 

Feel free to prove your case definitively with facts not opinions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.57  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.55    one month ago
Really, the lengths you have to go to in order to deny the truth are absurd.

And to what end?   How does this accomplish anything?   It amazes me that some will spend entire days arguing in futility while denying the obvious.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.58  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.53    one month ago
I don't think the prosecution proved Trump had the necessary intent to defraud by creating the records

The jury, which actually heard the evidence, thought they did and that's what counts.

even if they are false, which is arguable

Arguable in the same way as whether the sun rises in the east is arguable.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.1.59  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.40    one month ago
every day of his life

Actually Trump seems to be getting worse both Physically and mentally.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.60  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @7.1.59    one month ago

you're not the only one that's noticed. why do you think there's so many VP candidates in the GOP now? it's not like any of them could get elected to the office, they'd have to drop into that job by default...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
7.1.61  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @7.1.52    one month ago

What its like trying to reason with a person that hates trump

GI43oCyXAAEPWFu.jpg

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.62  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @7.1.61    one month ago

Have you completely missed the emotional / irrational rhetoric and 'arguments' made by Trump defenders ... especially since the guilty verdict?

You simplify this down to mere hatred of Trump and totally miss the point that Trump is bad for this nation and that is far beyond being unfit to serve as its president.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
7.1.63  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.62    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.64  Gsquared  replied to  cjcold @7.1.59    one month ago
Actually Trump seems to be getting worse both Physically and mentally.

His cognitive impairments appear to be rapidly worsening and he is obviously experiencing a steady decline.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.65  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.64    one month ago

his brain will be gray tapioca by the convention...

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.1.66  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @7.1.65    one month ago

Biden's already is!

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.1.67  arkpdx  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.64    one month ago

He will still be more aware and competent than Biden. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.68  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.66    one month ago

liar, fraud, racist, convicted felon, traitor...

trump represents his supporters perfectly...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.69  Gsquared  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.66    one month ago

Not by a long shot.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.70  Gsquared  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.67    one month ago

Trump is completely out of touch and totally incompetent (and a convicted felon, of course).  Biden is quite the opposite.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.1.71  arkpdx  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.70    one month ago

Really?

I will bet Trump knows knows the difference between the leaders of Egypt and Mexico are. I'll bet he knows that Francois Mitterand and Helmit Kohl are dead. Trump does not need a bunny rabbit to follow him around to keep him from saying things he shouldn't. He doesn't call paralyzed and dead congresspeople to stand and take a bow at his rallies. Trump hasn't fell up the stairs to his plane. A bag of illegal drugs were never found in the White House when Trump was president. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.72  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.71    one month ago

The former 'president' doesn't know dick about anything except what benefits himself.  He is IMHO a functional illiterate and a proven fucking moron.

He is a demented moron thug.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.1.73  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.72    one month ago

All the things I mentioned are absolutely true. Each of them have occurred and are well documented. Can you provide documented cases of anything Trump has done recently to bolster your claim. [deleted][]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.1.74  cjcold  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.64    one month ago

Witnessed my mom go down the tubes to dementia. Very sad.

So glad that she wasn't the leader of the free world!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.75  Gsquared  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.71    one month ago

Yes, really.  I will bet Trump couldn't find Mexico or Egypt on a map, or Canada for that matter.  I'll bet he has no idea who Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl were, where they were from or what they did. Trump called Victor Orban from Hungary "the great leader of Turkey".  Trump needs a muzzle of some sort to keep him from saying all the ridiculous things he shouldn't.  He called McCain a loser and said he wasn't a hero.  He called the dead American war heroes buried in France losers and suckers and refused attend a ceremony at the cemetery where they are buried.  He didn't want wounded veterans to participate in a parade because "No one wants to see that."  Trump said the Continental Army took over the airports from the British during the Revolutionary War.  Trump testified in a deposition that a photo of E. Jean Carroll was his wife Marla Maples.  Want more?  Because there are hundreds of them.  Trump's dementia is severe and worsening rapidly.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.76  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.75    one month ago
Trump called Victor Orban from Hungary "the great leader of Turkey".

Asked immediately after whether his newly announced   tariffs on Chinese goods   would hike consumer prices, Biden   confused the names of the leaders of America’s two great foreign adversaries .

“No, because here’s the deal. There’s a difference. I made it clear to Putin from the very beginning that — I’m not, we’re not engaging in,” Biden answered before trailing off briefly.

It's almost laughable that people pretend Biden is competent. Almost

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.77  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.75    one month ago

that sweet stench of maga desperation and vitriol as trump's polling numbers enter the slow spiral of electoral irrelevance. 35 days until he has to face the judge for the conviction of 34 felonies and a dozen counts of gag order violations, without any show of remorse or contrition, and a whole history of personal insults directed towards that judge and his family... sucks being maga...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.78  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.75    one month ago

Gettysburg WOW!

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.79  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @7.1.77    one month ago

don't forget intimidation by proxy

I can't believe those spineless dickless impotent hateful weasels aren't being held accountable for their part in pissing and shitting over the Justice System

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.1.80  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.62    one month ago

Folk hate Trump for a plethora of very good reasons.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.81  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cjcold @7.1.80    one month ago

Hard core leftist liberal folks hate Trump for a plethora of very good reasons.[]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.82  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.81    one month ago
hate Trump for a plethora of very good reasons.

It wasn't the comeback you were aiming for, Ed.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.83  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.82    one month ago

Worked for me, but to each their own. Just another matter of perspective.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.84  TᵢG  replied to  cjcold @7.1.80    one month ago

He has a plethora of extremely bad qualities.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.1.85  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.62    one month ago
Trump is bad for this nation

How do? Is being energy independent a bad thing? Is nominating three excellent choices for Supreme Court Justices bad? Is securing the southern border to stop illegal immigrants and drug smugglers and terrorists from coming across bad?

Tell me what's bad. Is that he is conservative? Is it that he does believe in giving away free stuff? I will agree he has a shitty personality but that does not make him bad for the country. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.86  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.85    one month ago

It seems some folks are incapable or unwilling to separate the two.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.87  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.84    one month ago

He has absolutely no redeeming qualities.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.88  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.87    one month ago

Of course not. Only hard core leftist liberals are allowed to have any redeeming qualities? If not than who else is?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.89  Gsquared  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.85    one month ago
Is being energy independent a bad thing?

It didn't happen under Trump.

nominating three excellent choices for Supreme Court Justices 

Trump nominated three right wing judicial activists to legislate from the bench.  Their opinions to date have largely been far outside the mainstream of American society.

securing the southern border to stop illegal immigrants and drug smugglers and terrorists from coming across

It didn't happen under Trump.

he is conservative

Only if you change the definition of "conservative" as it has been recognized for the last century in American politics.

 I will agree he has a shitty personality

That's something we can ALL agree on.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.90  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.85    one month ago

Tone down your stereotype.   You presume waaay too much.

I am not talking about his policies but rather he demeanor, character, integrity, honesty, responsibility, and basically fitness for office.

No point repeating all the bad about Trump yet again since Trump supporters ignore any bad of Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.91  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.86    one month ago

Okay, Ed, you clearly are referring to me.

It takes no mental effort to view Trump in terms of policies and Trump in terms of the human being occupying the office of the presidency.   I rarely have criticized his policies (although I certainly could ... top of the list is his irresponsible climate and energy policies).   My criticism has focused on his fitness to hold the office.

As with you, I will NOT vote for someone who is so utterly unfit to hold the office of the presidency.   Seems to me you liked his policies yet have stated you will not vote for him.   But you apparently do not think I am capable of making that same separation.

Why, given the context of your comment was my comment, would you imply that I cannot see the difference between policy and person?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1.92  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.91    one month ago
Okay, Ed, you clearly are referring to me.

No he wasn’t.    He was clearly responding to tessylo.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.93  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.89    one month ago
p nominated three right wing judicial activists to legislate from the bench.  Their opinions to date have largely been far outside the mainstream of American society.

Insanity.  Two of the Judges are the most moderate on the court and the most "conservative, " Gorsuch, votes with the most liberal member more than 2/3 of the times. 

The idea that the three Trump justices are out of the mainstream is pure  propaganda. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.94  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.93    one month ago

Yes, your comment did, as you correctly prefaced it, devolve into insanity.

The idea that Trump's Federalist Society appointees are not engaging in right wing judicial activism out of the mainstream is propaganda in its purest form.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.95  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @7.1.94    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
7.1.96  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.76    one month ago

Yes, isn't it.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.97  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.95    one month ago

Your comment is a Goebbelsian perversion of the truth, propounding fraudulent attacks in the tradition of the worst of neo-Fascist propaganda, in a transparent effort to disguise that your claims about Trump's Supreme Court appointees are verifiably false and incompatible with objective reality.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.99  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.91    one month ago

Only just saw your response a few moments ago. Sparty was correct in that I was not referring like to you. I did like Trump in the first year or so of his term, but as time went on I realized he was not the right person for the big chair in the Oval Office. If I offended you, that was absolutely not my intention.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.100  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.99    one month ago

You replied to arkpdx who was targeting me.

I take you at your word, but note that when someone is challenging an individual, an affirming reply on the challenge post also naturally applies to that individual.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.101  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.88    one month ago
Only hard core leftist liberals are allowed to have any redeeming qualities

You have a quote of Tessy saying that?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.102  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.88    one month ago

Makes no sense.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.1.103  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.91    one month ago
I will NOT vote for someone who is so utterly unfit to hold the office of the presidency

Yet you will support and vote for Biden who is clearly unfit for the office. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.104  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.103    one month ago

How many times must one explain this basic logic:   Trump is an order of magnitude worse for this nation than Biden.   The best way to use one's vote against Trump is to vote for Biden.

Fine if you disagree, just pay attention enough to comprehend the concept.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.105  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.104    one month ago
How many times must one explain this basic logic: 

A million times wouldnt even put a dent in it. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.106  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.102    one month ago

Of course not.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1.107  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.104    one month ago

Opinions do vary

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.1.108  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.104    one month ago

What is the best way to vote against Biden and still vote for someone who mayne able to win? No matter what you say I will not now or ever vote for Biden. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.109  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.108    one month ago

Of course, you are voting for Trump.   We all know that and also know that nothing will ever change your mind.

Why bother stating the obvious?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.1.110  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.109    one month ago

Where did I say that. You don't like it and get all pissy when you think others are putting words in your mouth what makes you think you can do it 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.111  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.110    one month ago

You deny that you are voting for Trump?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.112  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.111    one month ago

there's some bookmark potential...

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.113  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.101    one month ago

Those were questions not statements. I guess you missed the question marks.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
7.1.114  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.113    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.115  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.113    one month ago

Your question implied that Tessy had said something she hadn't, and attributes to her views she has not expressed.  If you're going to make that accusation, and that is what it was, expect to be called on it.

By your logic, I could put a lot of nasty words in your mouth, and weasel my way out of them by putting a question mark at the end.  "You think it's ok to kick puppies?"

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
7.1.116  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.115    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.117  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.106    one month ago

Progress.  So you agree your comment makes no sense

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.118  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.66    one month ago

Don't forget to eat your tapioca pudding.

Was it jello last night?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
7.1.120  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.117    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.121  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.117    one month ago

In your own words:

I don't answer to you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.122  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.121    one month ago
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.123  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @7.1.25    one month ago

I just heard, I think someone else may have mentioned it, that the former 'president' could lose his secret service security detail?  That would be awesome.  Why can't mr. alleged billionaire pay for its' own security?

Who in their right mind would take a bullet for him?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
7.1.124  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.123    one month ago
I just heard, I think someone else may have mentioned it

You should try talking with more informed people.  You might also brace yourself for the disappointment that you will feel on 11 July.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.126  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.15    one month ago
Sorry you think it's difficult to read

try using google to translate your comments into latin...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.127  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @7.1.25    one month ago

'when will trumpsters admit their hero is a common criminal?'

for the majority of its' life

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago

the US gov't should be monitoring domestic terrorists/insurrectionists that conspire against our democracy and the constitution...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.2.1  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @7.2    one month ago

The FBI states that domestic far right-wing hate groups are at the top of their watch list. Which means some here should pack their bags. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.2.2  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @7.2.1    one month ago

plenty of room, since there's no balls in them...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @7.2.2    one month ago

like a certain person hereabouts who seems to have a hard on for a certain person hereabouts, follows me everywhere

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.3  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago
You are all being watched on social media and everywhere else.

Great advice, very patriotic indeed. As long as you're being watched, don't do the crime, but if they are not watching go for it. 

I'm more of an advocate of ''don't commit the crime if you can't do the time''....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.3.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @7.3    one month ago

oh man, now where are they going to go to wear sheets, burn crosses, wave dumb ass flags, and goosestep around in formation?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @7.3.1    one month ago

'you are al being watched on social media and everywhere else'

'don't do it'

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.3.3  cjcold  replied to  Kavika @7.3    one month ago

Political psychopaths tend not to have that sort of foresight.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.3.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @7.3.1    one month ago
now where are they going to go to wear sheets, burn crosses, wave dumb ass flags, and goosestep around in formation?

Harrison, Arkansas

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.3.5  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.3.4    one month ago

too bad it's not as unhealthy being a white supremacist as it was 165 years ago...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.2    one month ago

The former 'president' convicted felon on 34 counts should have thought of similar words before doing the crime

'don't do the crime if you can't do the time'

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.4  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago
Anyone who... commits an act of violence against the government will be caught immediately and prosecuted

Is that a bad thing?  Do you disapprove?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.4.1  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @7.4    one month ago

... only if they're trump voters, apparently.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago

Like on 1/6?  Over 1,400 tried and convicted so far - one scumbag supporter of the former 'president' just got 12 years 'for committing violence against the government'

Don't do it

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.5.1  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @7.5    one month ago

And Trump told them to. Why isn't Trump in prison?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.5.2  bugsy  replied to  cjcold @7.5.1    one month ago
And Trump told them to

Exactly what did he say to them to get them to storm the Capitol?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.5.3  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @7.5.1    one month ago

Yes, incited his magats ever since he lost bigly and on the day of the incitement, 1/6

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.5.4  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @7.5.3    one month ago

Do cite where he invited anybody to violence on Jan 6. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.5.5  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @7.5.4    one month ago

INCITED

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.5.6  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @7.5.5    one month ago

OK. When did he incite anyone to violence be specific and post links. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.5.7  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @7.5.6    one month ago

since I said it started and it continues to this day

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
7.5.8  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @7.5.7    one month ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.5.9  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @7.5.4    one month ago

The fact that you do not recognize Trump’s incendiary language even now means that you likely never will.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
7.5.10  Right Down the Center  replied to  arkpdx @7.5.6    one month ago
OK. When did he incite anyone to violence be specific and post links. 

Right when he said " "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.".  Somehow or other that means "Go take over the Government and make me King"

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.5.11  devangelical  replied to  Right Down the Center @7.5.10    one month ago

want to see some more clips of trump's speech, speeches of his sycophants, and inaction of trump that day to help build some context? yeah, probably not ...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
7.5.12  Right Down the Center  replied to  devangelical @7.5.11    one month ago

You forgot mean tweets.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.5.13  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @7.5.11    one month ago

jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.5.14  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @7.5.11    one month ago

"WE KNOW THEY ARE LYING

THEY KNOW THEY ARE LYING

THEY KNOW THAT WE KNOW THEY ARE LYING

WE KNOW THAT THEY KNOW THAT WE KNOW THEY ARE LYING

AND STILL THEY CONTINUE TO LIE."

ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.5.15  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @7.5.14    one month ago

Yes, the "In Your Face" of MAGA lies is SHAMELESS.

It isn't subtle. They flaunt it, strut those lies around!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.5.16  devangelical  replied to  Right Down the Center @7.5.12    one month ago

party at my house when that steaming POS ultimately turns hard from natural causes. sorry, you're not invited, but have fun at the wake and parade...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
7.5.17  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @7.5.14    one month ago

BUT DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT THEY KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE LYING?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
7.5.18  Right Down the Center  replied to  devangelical @7.5.16    one month ago

Then I guess you are not invited to my streaming Bidens best brain dead brain farts and sharts.  Of course it is over 12 hours and growing every day.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.5.19  devangelical  replied to  Right Down the Center @7.5.18    one month ago

... bummer, but you and all your friends have fun there... /s

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
7.5.20  afrayedknot  replied to  devangelical @7.5.16    one month ago

“…have fun at the wake and parade...”

When the day eventually comes it will be interesting to see his funeral procession and where he will be laid to rest.

Who will walk behind his limousine driven casket? Who will recite the apologetic eulogy? Will the presidential library have a single book? Will anyone really care? 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
7.6  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago
and prosecuted in a way that no other violent protestor ever has

Hopefully they will be subjected to the cruelest type of torture for a few days preceding their actual "punishment'!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
7.7  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one month ago
will be caught immediately and prosecuted in a way that no other violent protestor ever has.

And what "way", exactly, would that be?

Perhaps water boarding? being skinned alive? Mass rape?

Perhaps having to watch endless loops of trump speeches where he criticizes the size of Rubio's hands, etc?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.7.1  Tessylo  replied to  Krishna @7.7    one month ago

The last I think is the worst

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.7.2  devangelical  replied to  Krishna @7.7    one month ago
Perhaps having to watch endless loops of trump speeches where he criticizes the size of Rubio's hands, etc?

his moronic supporters lap that shit up...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8  MrFrost    one month ago

The party of "law and order".. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @8    one month ago

defenders of the constitution... LOL...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @8    one month ago

and don't forget family values

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2    one month ago

mob family values ...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.2.2  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @8.2.1    one month ago

aka maga family values...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
9  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

My view from afar...

giphy.gif?cid=790b76111ee43bf39addfbf8a4c412f6e7d0b91192a4664c&rid=giphy.gif&ct=s

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
10  Sean Treacy    one month ago

So after a democratic prosecutor with the help of a democratic activist judge in a heavily democratic jurisdiction convicts the Republican frontrunner for a crime for which no one has ever been convicted there is no violence from Republicans. Trump just campaigns and raises money.

Guess we see, again, who the party of norms is. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1  seeder  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    one month ago
no violence from Republicans.

No, just calls for it.

The party of norms is the one without the convicted felon at its helm.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.1  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1    one month ago

gee, over half a century of political humiliations, and now a convicted felon as their presumed presidential candidate...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
11  Drinker of the Wry    one month ago

Republican elected leaders trash our judicial system while some unstable individuals call for violence.  This Party has been led away from being the Party for Law and Order.  Just like Trump led them away from fiscal responsibility, fair trade and international stability.

He has split the Party by dismantling its ideology and assisted electing individuals that have no interest or ability in governing.  

It’s been around 175 years since major political parties have imploded but I think that I will see one before I die.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11    one month ago

the GOP didn't implode, it was a hostile take over by maga morons, from the cowards that chose a paycheck over patriotism.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.2  Gsquared  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11    one month ago

All true. 

In addition:

Republican elected leaders trash our judicial system

... our election system, our educational system, our regulatory system, the free press, unions, our intelligence agencies, our military and our foreign allies/alliances just to name a few.

It has become a pernicious force and a profoundly anti-democratic entity.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
11.3  cjcold  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11    one month ago

Far right-wing hate filled fascists going up against inclusive liberals?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
11.3.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @11.3    one month ago
Inclusive

Perhaps as long as they keep their group identity.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
12  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

I have to advise my 'dual citizenship' son who lives in Milwuakee that if he's ever called for jury duty to find some, ANY, excuse not to serve.  He needs to realize he's not in Canada any more.  

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
12.1  cjcold  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12    one month ago

This American told them that I hate fascism. Wasn't picked for jury duty.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.1.1  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @12.1    one month ago

no worries. they don't pick people our age any more, because they have to pay us...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
12.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @12.1    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
12.1.3  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @12.1.1    one month ago

I just tell them that I hate everybody and that I am incontinent.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @12.1.1    one month ago

hanging's not good enough for 'em!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
12.1.5  Krishna  replied to  devangelical @12.1.1    one month ago
they don't pick people our age any more, because they have to pay us...

They don't pay younger people?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Krishna @12.1.5    one month ago

you only get mileage if employed, employer pays your wages. otherwise jury duty pays $50 plus mileage per day, last I heard...

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
12.1.7  Krishna  replied to  devangelical @12.1.6    one month ago
you only get mileage if employed, employer pays your wages. otherwise jury duty pays $50 plus mileage per day, last I heard...

Actually, now that I think about it, it also depends upon what type of jury duty. There's a jury in a Federal courts system. But also the state system-- wouldn't that very significantly from state to state?

(IDK-- I'm not a lawyer-- and neither do I POOTV).

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
12.1.8  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @12.1.7    one month ago
(IDK-- I'm not a lawyer-- and neither do I POOTV).

Aside to Buzz (who can't access YouTube). . . "Unimportant But Interesting":

1. That links to a video (nowadays AKA a "reel") on YouTube that shows the opening credits from an ancient TV show called "LA Law".

2.  "POOTV" is an MLA from the early days of the Internet. Originally there was a MLA of "INALB" which was short for "I'm not a lawyer but"... later sometimes expanded to "INALBIPOOTV" meaning "I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV".

Ah-- those were the daze!!

(And don't get me started on "Miami Vice". ...)

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
13  arkpdx    one month ago

I am waiting for them to arrest and charge Stormy Davis with prostitution. She did admit to having sex and getting paid for it

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
13.1  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @13    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
13.2  Hallux  replied to  arkpdx @13    one month ago

I've heard of a Storm Davis ... was he plying his other trade in the bullpen?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @13    one month ago

who's stormy davis?

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
13.3.1  Hallux  replied to  devangelical @13.3    one month ago

Davis is the guy who sang Stormy Leather.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
13.3.2  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @13.3    one month ago

Ok I screwed up.  Stormy Daniels. She still should be a charged with prostitution and extortion. They just brought my dinner and I was in a hurry

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3.3  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @13.3.2    one month ago
She still should be a charged with prostitution

but, but, but, what about charging her "john"? ... don't forget to eat all the jello.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @13.3.3    one month ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @13.3.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif Don't know why . . . there's no sun up in the sky . . .. stormy weather . . . . . 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.4  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @13    one month ago

That's the only way the loser gets laid is to pay for it.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.4.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @13.4    one month ago

$130K  = $1.5K per second or $5K per hump...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @13.4.1    one month ago

that's what he leaves on Melania's dresser after finishing

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.4.3  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @13.4.2    one month ago

she's selling his DNA to maga bimbos...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
13.4.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @13.4.3    one month ago

oh dear gawd....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.4.5  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.4.4    one month ago

no worries, she's keeping it in a regular freezer, in tupperware...

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
13.4.6  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @13.4    one month ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
13.5  cjcold  replied to  arkpdx @13    one month ago

So arrest every porn star on the planet? You should kick in the NFL.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
13.5.1  arkpdx  replied to  cjcold @13.5    one month ago
So arrest every porn star on the planet?

I have no problem with that one way or the other. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
13.5.2  Krishna  replied to  cjcold @13.5    one month ago
So arrest every porn star on the planet?

And how about all those  sexploiters on OnlyFans?

(I actually met one of them in a course I was taking...never would've guessed she did OnlyFans if she hadn't mentioned it). Never did any actual physical contact though-- so I suppose that's not considered prostitution?)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  arkpdx @13    one month ago

She extorted him for money.  The NDA was the extortion payment.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.6.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.6    one month ago

Trump the victim.   Good grief.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.6.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @13.6.1    one month ago
Trump the victim.   Good grief.

It's clear from her lawyer's taped conversations she extorted Trump.  

Imagine thinking Strormy Daniels is some sort of victim. She's a sex worker who blackmailed her john. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.6.3  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.6.2    one month ago

Defending a lifetime scoundrel, exploitative con-man by claiming he was extorted.   

How special.   Poor Trump, an altruistic, innocent, decent man being so terribly mistreated by life.     256

There seems to be no end to the level of absurdity Trump supporters will go to nowadays.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.6.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @13.6.3    one month ago

Oh, right. I forgot.  Once progressives deem someone a "bad man" they are guilty of everything and everything that happens to them is justifiable. 

Just like how dirty cops justify torturing confessions out of gang members. They are bad people and guilty of something, so how could they ever be the victim.

Classic authoritarian thinking. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.6.5  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.6.4    one month ago
Once progressives deem someone a "bad man" they are guilty of everything and everything that happens to them is justifiable. 

More ridiculous hyperbole ignoring all facts and logic to spew emotional rhetoric.

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
13.6.6  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.6    one month ago
She extorted him for money.

Live by the sword, die by the sword

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
13.6.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.6.4    one month ago

Exactly

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.6.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @13.6.5    one month ago
re ridiculous hyperbole ignoring all facts and logic to spew emotional rhetoric.

Lol.  Your facts and logic consists of "orange man bad" therefore he can't be the victim, ever.

Pure projection. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.6.9  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @13.6.5    one month ago

'. . .if they do this to me, they can do this to you. . .'  I'm paraphrasing of course

Yes, they can do this to me if I try to cover up paying off a porn star I shtupped to keep it from the missus at home with new born Barron and a Playboy bunny out of the tabloids to so a lot of those who voted for the scumbag may not have due to this.

And if I was President and tried to overthrow the results of a free and fair election with my incitement of an armed insurrection with the BIG LIE and the fake electors scheme

And if I keep Top Secret and Classified Documents and refused to return them and told his attorneys to say that everything was returned and obstructed and attempted to tamper/destroy evidence of his aides moving Top Secret and Classified Documents that I understand not all documents have yet to be returned

And Georgia 

And ...

When we/any of us - do these things - yes - they can do this to you - find you guilty of the crimes you have committed

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
13.6.10  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @13.6.1    one month ago
Trump the victim.   Good grief.

Trump is always the victim!

Aren't you aware of the fact that the most discriminated-against type of people in America today are " White Christian Men "?*

______________________________

*Although some would argue about whether or not Trump is actually a true Christian....but let's not go there! jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.6.11  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @13.6.3    one month ago
There seems to be no end to the level of absurdity Trump supporters will go to nowadays.

in for a penny, in for a pound...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
13.7  MrFrost  replied to  arkpdx @13    one month ago

I am waiting for them to arrest and charge Stormy Davis with prostitution. She did admit to having sex and getting paid for it

Prostitution is illegal, pornography is a legal business. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.7.1  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @13.7    one month ago

she was auditioning for the apprentice...

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
13.7.2  George  replied to  devangelical @13.7.1    one month ago

Like Kamala auditioning for AG under Willy Brown or VP under Joe.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.7.3  devangelical  replied to  George @13.7.2    one month ago

like melania auditioning for first lady...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.7.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @13.7.1    one month ago

lol - the former 'president's' convicted felon of 34 counts reality show

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
13.7.5  arkpdx  replied to  MrFrost @13.7    one month ago

Having sex for money is by definition prostitution. By trying to get more money after the fact is extortion and blackmail. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
13.7.6  arkpdx  replied to  MrFrost @13.7    one month ago
pornography is a legal business

Where and when did I say it wasn't?

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.7.7  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @13.7.5    one month ago

so the former 'president' was her john then

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
13.7.8  MrFrost  replied to  arkpdx @13.7.5    one month ago
By trying to get more money after the fact is extortion and blackmail. 

Let me guess, the NDA was her idea too? LOL Are you serious? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.7.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @13.7.8    one month ago

Yes, of course it was.  This was all in the trial.  She hired a lawyer to shop her story to various outlets and her lawyer reached out to cohen and was caught on tape telling cohen how obsessed Daniels was with getting as much as  money possible and exploiting the leverage she had. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
13.7.10  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.7.9    one month ago

Yet, Trump is still denying he ever tapped that...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
13.7.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @13.7.10    one month ago

I'm sure he's lying. Doesn't really have anything to do with Stormy Daniels going after him for more  money years after having sex with him for money. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
13.7.12  Krishna  replied to  arkpdx @13.7.5    one month ago
By trying to get more money after the fact is extortion and blackmail. 

Not if you merely "ask nicely"....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.7.13  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.7.11    one month ago

X

Death Wishing [sandy-2021492]     violation.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=1717649094

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
13.7.14  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.7.9    one month ago
Yes, of course it was.

Why would she need an NDA? Was she running for president? Was she the one cheating on her spouse? Yea, ok... 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
13.7.15  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.7.9    one month ago
This was all in the trial.  She hired a lawyer to shop her story to various outlets

So SHE wanted an NDA, then in the next sentence you say she wanted her story, 'out there'.. 

I'm pretty sure trump wanted the NDA, not her.