User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 5:16:13 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: I just love how they keep throwing the indictment in your face like it’s gospel or something.  A ham sandwich always comes to mind . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 5:58:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: LordsOfDiscipline]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Oldgold: This! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Oldgold: Originally Posted By Wildfowler: Can someone kindly tell me what's going on in the thread that matches the headline? Does Trump have immunity or not? I'm not even sure I remember what he supposed to be immune from now? This! A decision should be handed down by June. The arguments within this thread are illustrative and mirror the questioning at the the Supreme Court yesterday; there is one side that believe that there is limited immunity for The Executive and jailing political opponents is lawful - the Justices that are directing questions in this direction are Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown Jackson, all Democrat_appointments. The other side believes that The Executive has broad immunity with exclusive Constitutional powers and jailing political opponents is unlawful and un American - the Justices that are directing questions in this direction are Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett and The Great Justice Thomas, all Republican appointees. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 6:08:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: dorobuta]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Yes. But killing foreign enemies in terrorist organizations on foreign soil who have pledged ‘death to America’ ain’t a crime what about those on American soil? I wish they would go after them like they go after Trump... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 6:09:16 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AZ_Hi_Desert: His 16 year old son was also killed in a drone strike two weeks later. The Obama administration claimed they were after Ibrahim al-Banna. Al-Banna is still alive to this very day. He was never in the car. Extra judicial killings of American citizens can never be countenanced. It's prohibited by the 5th Amendment. Try in abstentia if needed, but a bunch of lawyers and intel weenies making the call on killing people cannot be allowed. (edit- killing US citizens shouldn't be allowed like that. Foreign national tangos are fair game) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AZ_Hi_Desert: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Simple. He was a US citizen and wasn't on the battle field. His 16 year old son was also killed in a drone strike two weeks later. The Obama administration claimed they were after Ibrahim al-Banna. Al-Banna is still alive to this very day. He was never in the car. Extra judicial killings of American citizens can never be countenanced. It's prohibited by the 5th Amendment. Try in abstentia if needed, but a bunch of lawyers and intel weenies making the call on killing people cannot be allowed. (edit- killing US citizens shouldn't be allowed like that. Foreign national tangos are fair game) I see your points and respect your position. But still, I disagree. So in your mind, joining an international terrorist organization, and leaving your country to help them, is not tantamount to renouncing citizenship? Why not? A cop has the right to shoot a US citizen, on us soil, in the back, if they are an active threat to society. But the US military doesn't have that right overseas? Why not? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 6:20:49 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Correction--40-60% of Republicans, and if you drill down on the details I suspect the real number of true believers is much less than that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Slow down and read it again--it says the conspiracies (the actual crimes being charged) were built on the lying. He didn't get indicted for lying. That's the whole basis of the "conspiracies" so yes, he is indicted for "lying." At the heart of the matter, it's a "lie" that somewhere between 40-60% of Americans believe. Correction--40-60% of Republicans, and if you drill down on the details I suspect the real number of true believers is much less than that. The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 9:49:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IceChimp: Every Trump pick was at least a minor upgrade to the one they replaced. Barett is approximately 87 million percent better than Ginsburg so far. Really? Neil Gorsuch replaced Antonin Scalia. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 9:58:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SteveOak: Really? Neil Gorsuch replaced Antonin Scalia. Isn’t he one that’s been solid? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 10:07:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FlashMan-7k]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MADMAXXX: To your Newsletter I wish to subscribe.  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MADMAXXX: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: That's just it. We don't and never did need pretext. We don't have to go against the rules. We don't have to break any laws or set any precedents. All you have to do is stick strictly to the text of the cotus, and the text of the cotus is the meaning of it as written according the grammar and definition from the time of it's writing. Not one iota less not one iota more courts and cour precedent cannot change this meaning. The courts and their precdent and their interpretation is not the law. The meaning of the text of cotus is. If the courts go against this, they are ruling illegally and should be tried and punished as such by the other branches. Toss the whole corrupt rotting structure of interpretation that does not follow those rules in the incenrator where it belongs. Oh, and only amendments that passed according to the rules of amendment in cotus are a part of cotus, so any structure leaning on amendments that did not pass are de jure and defacto illegal and to be tossed in the same incenerator and all contracts and etc. erected by them are null and void because they were null and void at the time of their making. For an absolute low hanging fruit stater, this means no 14th. Kiss incorporation goodbye along with all it's attendant evils (and the very few goods). Huge jump up in federalism. Abjectly REFUSE to allow the fedgov to go outside of those rules, and use those rules to give the proper deserved punishment to those who break them. Let the teenager scream, try and light the curtains on fire, and grab the kitchen knife, it doesn't matter. If they scream you restrain them and duct tape their mouths shut. If they try and light the curtains on fire you stop them however they make it necessary. If they try and stab you use deadly force on them to stop them, and if they survive, you try them as attempted murders. We don't have to have a revolution. We don't have to go draconian. We don't have to have a war. We don't need to toss out rule of law and engage in partiality. Pick up the rules and USE THEM. Exclude EVERYTHING the rules exclude. Watch 99.999999% of everything the fedgov does evaporate. @MADMAXXX Not really necessary.  Read this: https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?full=on&ac=sl&st=sl&qi=EQbuJwjQeWK4RyKL2jZm9BLJlsk_1714182966_1%3A19285%3A32618  Than (and don't snort at it being a pig guide, it's legit good) this: https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?full=on&ac=sl&st=sl&qi=wfHpIaa16gaWFRX%2CEFuGl84cGW4_1714183103_1%3A4382%3A8308  If you read them in order, you will have trouble finishing the second one. You will be beyond utterly pissed as you realize how badly you've been gaslit and abused and how quickly cotus was trampled. Than, and only than, watch this:  The Fourteenth Amendment [Lecture 4 of 10] Thomas E. Woods, Jr. --------------------------------------------- If you can keep from being depresssed after the above - and you should, but it's brutal. Do these:  Constitutional History Lecture 1: German and British Antecedents  Constitutional History Lecture 2: Colonial Constitutionalism  Constitutional History Lecture 3: The Imperial Crisis  Constitutional History Lecture 4: The Declaration of Independence  Constitutional History Lecture 5: Articles of Confederation and the Critical Period  Constitutional History Lecture 6: To the Philadelphia Convention  Constitutional History Lecture 7: The Philadelphia Convention  Constitutional History Lecture 8: Ratification  Constitutional History Lecture 9: The Federalist (Papers)  Constitutional History Lecture 10: State Constitutions  Constitutional History Lecture 11: The First Congress  Constitutional History Lecture 12: At Swords' Point: Jefferson vs. Hamilton in the Cabinet  Constitutional History Lecture 13: Federalists Off the Rails  Constitutional History Lecture 14: Jeffersonians Take Command  Constitutional History Lecture 15: The Marshall Court, Part I ------------------------------- While you are thinking I am stupidly insane to suggest THIS much time and investement, here, watch a nice short one:  Why The American Revolution Was About FREE SPEECH & SELF-SUFFICIENT Economics, Not Just Taxes |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 10:13:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I see your points and respect your position. But still, I disagree. So in your mind, joining an international terrorist organization, and leaving your country to help them, is not tantamount to renouncing citizenship? Why not? A cop has the right to shoot a US citizen, on us soil, in the back, if they are an active threat to society. But the US military doesn't have that right overseas? Why not? If cops had the right to shoot anyone posing an active threat to society we would be having to air drop them ammo resupply in major cities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 10:22:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. Heartland Institute / Rasmussen, for the fraud . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 10:58:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: I just love how they keep throwing the indictment in your face like it's gospel or something. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Originally Posted By sixnine: Well shit, I guess they finally got him then. I just love how they keep throwing the indictment in your face like it's gospel or something. https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Indictment_Not_Evid.pdf  https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/resources/pattern2003/html/patt74bp.htm#:~:text=The%20indictment%20is%20simply%20an,The%20indictment%20proves%20nothing  https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/335  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:08:05 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Slow down and read it again--it says the conspiracies (the actual crimes being charged) were built on the lying. He didn't get indicted for lying. That's the whole basis of the "conspiracies" so yes, he is indicted for "lying." At the heart of the matter, it's a "lie" that somewhere between 40-60% of Americans believe. Correction--40-60% of Republicans, and if you drill down on the details I suspect the real number of true believers is much less than that. The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. It's probably not very important and we don't need to get sidetracked on this, but as usual I think you have to drill down and see what actual questions were asked, and then what follow up happened. Here's an example more in line with what I have heard over the last few years on these questions: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate Among Republican-aligned adults, the share who believe there is solid evidence proving the election was not legitimate stands at 39%, while 30% say it is merely their suspicion that Biden did not win legitimately, and 29% say Biden’s election was legitimate. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:11:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: A decision should be handed down by June. The arguments within this thread are illustrative and mirror the questioning at the the Supreme Court yesterday; there is one side that believe that there is limited immunity for The Executive and jailing political opponents is lawful - the Justices that are directing questions in this direction are Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown Jackson, all Democrat_appointments. The other side believes that The Executive has broad immunity with exclusive Constitutional powers and jailing political opponents is unlawful and un American - the Justices that are directing questions in this direction are Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett and The Great Justice Thomas, all Republican appointees. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Originally Posted By Oldgold: Originally Posted By Wildfowler: Can someone kindly tell me what's going on in the thread that matches the headline? Does Trump have immunity or not? I'm not even sure I remember what he supposed to be immune from now? This! A decision should be handed down by June. The arguments within this thread are illustrative and mirror the questioning at the the Supreme Court yesterday; there is one side that believe that there is limited immunity for The Executive and jailing political opponents is lawful - the Justices that are directing questions in this direction are Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown Jackson, all Democrat_appointments. The other side believes that The Executive has broad immunity with exclusive Constitutional powers and jailing political opponents is unlawful and un American - the Justices that are directing questions in this direction are Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett and The Great Justice Thomas, all Republican appointees. Prepare to be disappointed. Remember that the Court decides questions, not cases. So they actually wrote their own question that they would decide, when they issue their decision it's probably going to go back down to the lower court to work out its ramifications for Trump's case. But the prediction from people who I think know what they're talking about is that it will be either unanimous or close to unanimous against broad immunity. They may try to carve out some narrow qualified criminal immunity for certain official acts of the president only, but anybody who is hoping for this to be a win for Trump is going to be disappointed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:10:16 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: If cops had the right to shoot anyone posing an active threat to society we would be having to air drop them ammo resupply in major cities. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I see your points and respect your position. But still, I disagree. So in your mind, joining an international terrorist organization, and leaving your country to help them, is not tantamount to renouncing citizenship? Why not? A cop has the right to shoot a US citizen, on us soil, in the back, if they are an active threat to society. But the US military doesn't have that right overseas? Why not? If cops had the right to shoot anyone posing an active threat to society we would be having to air drop them ammo resupply in major cities. Do you think cops don't legally shoot dangerous criminals? It happens, frequently. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:42:46 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zofoman: Exactly. Al-Awlaki was taken out in 2011 at a time when the US had a thriving hard on for anyone associated with 9/11 especially leaders/planners....let's not forget those fresh memories of the time. It's easy to look back now and say differently as some previous commentary alludes to. However, add in these other "things"....2 weeks after Al-Awlaki was taken out his 16yr old son, also a US citizen, was killed by a drone strike in Yemen. Later, his 8 yr old daughter was killed during a raid against Al-Qaeda ordered by Donny Trump in 2017....no one talks about that. Meh, not crying over some retard bringing his family to live in installations that are on active military strike lists. Terrible for the little girl of course, but she has a piece of shit mother and father. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 10:16:52 AM EDT
[#17]
 Justice Gorsuch’s GOTCHA! Mic Drop Moment in Trump’s Presidential Immunity Argument |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 12:28:06 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: It's probably not very important and we don't need to get sidetracked on this, but as usual I think you have to drill down and see what actual questions were asked, and then what follow up happened. Here's an example more in line with what I have heard over the last few years on these questions: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Slow down and read it again--it says the conspiracies (the actual crimes being charged) were built on the lying. He didn't get indicted for lying. That's the whole basis of the "conspiracies" so yes, he is indicted for "lying." At the heart of the matter, it's a "lie" that somewhere between 40-60% of Americans believe. Correction--40-60% of Republicans, and if you drill down on the details I suspect the real number of true believers is much less than that. The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. It's probably not very important and we don't need to get sidetracked on this, but as usual I think you have to drill down and see what actual questions were asked, and then what follow up happened. Here's an example more in line with what I have heard over the last few years on these questions: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate Among Republican-aligned adults, the share who believe there is solid evidence proving the election was not legitimate stands at 39%, while 30% say it is merely their suspicion that Biden did not win legitimately, and 29% say Biden’s election was legitimate. so 69% of republicans don't think the election was legit, that's a fuck of a lot of people |
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 12:41:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Seadra_tha_Guineapig: so 69% of republicans don't think the election was legit, that's a fuck of a lot of people Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Seadra_tha_Guineapig: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Slow down and read it again--it says the conspiracies (the actual crimes being charged) were built on the lying. He didn't get indicted for lying. That's the whole basis of the "conspiracies" so yes, he is indicted for "lying." At the heart of the matter, it's a "lie" that somewhere between 40-60% of Americans believe. Correction--40-60% of Republicans, and if you drill down on the details I suspect the real number of true believers is much less than that. The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. It's probably not very important and we don't need to get sidetracked on this, but as usual I think you have to drill down and see what actual questions were asked, and then what follow up happened. Here's an example more in line with what I have heard over the last few years on these questions: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate Among Republican-aligned adults, the share who believe there is solid evidence proving the election was not legitimate stands at 39%, while 30% say it is merely their suspicion that Biden did not win legitimately, and 29% say Biden’s election was legitimate. so 69% of republicans don't think the election was legit, that's a fuck of a lot of people Add in the Democrats who thought 2016 wasn't legit, but think 2020 was legit because a democrat won. Had trump won, they'd be claiming 202 wasn't legit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 2:17:04 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: I mean that premeditated killing is always murder and that affirmative defenses like (defense of others, defense of self, advice of counsel, war time activities) are legal defenses to be asserted at trial etc. That's how it works for most people. And, as no one is above the law, a subsequent administrations could charge and force them to assert the defense at trial. I'm not sure you have that correct. Most people view killings in self defense/wartime to not be murder. In my state, I don't have to prove self defense, the government has to prove it was not self defense. A lot of self defense cases are no billed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 4:11:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: mcculver5]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dino: I'm not sure you have that correct. Most people view killings in self defense/wartime to not be murder. In my state, I don't have to prove self defense, the government has to prove it was not self defense. A lot of self defense cases are no billed. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dino: Originally Posted By mcculver5: I mean that premeditated killing is always murder and that affirmative defenses like (defense of others, defense of self, advice of counsel, war time activities) are legal defenses to be asserted at trial etc. That's how it works for most people. And, as no one is above the law, a subsequent administrations could charge and force them to assert the defense at trial. I'm not sure you have that correct. Most people view killings in self defense/wartime to not be murder. In my state, I don't have to prove self defense, the government has to prove it was not self defense. A lot of self defense cases are no billed. Oh sure, I agree that's the normative baseline. The point, however, is that if we are prosecuting ex-presidents, then everything is OK. Technically, one must assert the affirmative defense at trial, if there is evidence supporting said defense (usually a very low burden) then the prosecution must disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Most affirmative defenses are defenses which must be asserted then disproven at trial. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 12:04:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Seadra_tha_Guineapig: so 69% of republicans don't think the election was legit, that's a fuck of a lot of people Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Seadra_tha_Guineapig: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Slow down and read it again--it says the conspiracies (the actual crimes being charged) were built on the lying. He didn't get indicted for lying. That's the whole basis of the "conspiracies" so yes, he is indicted for "lying." At the heart of the matter, it's a "lie" that somewhere between 40-60% of Americans believe. Correction--40-60% of Republicans, and if you drill down on the details I suspect the real number of true believers is much less than that. The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. It's probably not very important and we don't need to get sidetracked on this, but as usual I think you have to drill down and see what actual questions were asked, and then what follow up happened. Here's an example more in line with what I have heard over the last few years on these questions: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate Among Republican-aligned adults, the share who believe there is solid evidence proving the election was not legitimate stands at 39%, while 30% say it is merely their suspicion that Biden did not win legitimately, and 29% say Biden’s election was legitimate. so 69% of republicans don't think the election was legit, that's a fuck of a lot of people The point is that a big portion of that number is just wish casting. The number of people who actually researched it and are convinced there is evidence of the fraud is quite small. Everybody else just wants to believe it's true because they wish it were true. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 10:12:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: The point is that a big portion of that number is just wish casting. The number of people who actually researched it and are convinced there is evidence of the fraud is quite small. Everybody else just wants to believe it's true because they wish it were true. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Seadra_tha_Guineapig: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Slow down and read it again--it says the conspiracies (the actual crimes being charged) were built on the lying. He didn't get indicted for lying. That's the whole basis of the "conspiracies" so yes, he is indicted for "lying." At the heart of the matter, it's a "lie" that somewhere between 40-60% of Americans believe. Correction--40-60% of Republicans, and if you drill down on the details I suspect the real number of true believers is much less than that. The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. It's probably not very important and we don't need to get sidetracked on this, but as usual I think you have to drill down and see what actual questions were asked, and then what follow up happened. Here's an example more in line with what I have heard over the last few years on these questions: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate Among Republican-aligned adults, the share who believe there is solid evidence proving the election was not legitimate stands at 39%, while 30% say it is merely their suspicion that Biden did not win legitimately, and 29% say Biden’s election was legitimate. so 69% of republicans don't think the election was legit, that's a fuck of a lot of people The point is that a big portion of that number is just wish casting. The number of people who actually researched it and are convinced there is evidence of the fraud is quite small. Everybody else just wants to believe it's true because they wish it were true.  Yeah who are they going to believe... Your "research" or their own lying eyes and common sense. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 10:27:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: The point is that a big portion of that number is just wish casting. The number of people who actually researched it and are convinced there is evidence of the fraud is quite small. Everybody else just wants to believe it's true because they wish it were true. I guess when states violated their own State Constitution specifically about voting you deem this is acceptable? Why have laws at this point if nobody is going to follow them? (and look where we are now because of ignoring laws and not prosecuting people.....unless it is your political opponent) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 10:59:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: StanGram]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: How about this guy? Deserving of the same due process as Americans who don't flee the country to join Al Qaeda? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By AZ_Hi_Desert: His 16 year old son was also killed in a drone strike two weeks later. The Obama administration claimed they were after Ibrahim al-Banna. Al-Banna is still alive to this very day. He was never in the car. Extra judicial killings of American citizens can never be countenanced. It's prohibited by the 5th Amendment. Try in abstentia if needed, but a bunch of lawyers and intel weenies making the call on killing people cannot be allowed. (edit- killing US citizens shouldn't be allowed like that. Foreign national tangos are fair game) How about this guy? Deserving of the same due process as Americans who don't flee the country to join Al Qaeda? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn For all of the anti-due process remarks you've made about Trump, the irony of this post is amazing. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 11:08:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Do you think cops don't legally shoot dangerous criminals? It happens, frequently. That's not what you said. Why are you backing up? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 11:12:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: That's not what you said. Why are you backing up? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Do you think cops don't legally shoot dangerous criminals? It happens, frequently. That's not what you said. Why are you backing up? I'm not. I said the same thing, two different ways... So people that might have difficulty comprehend ing the point, might understand. LOL |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 11:35:28 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: The point is that a big portion of that number is just wish casting. The number of people who actually researched it and are convinced there is evidence of the fraud is quite small. Everybody else just wants to believe it's true because they wish it were true. [lmao] Definitely some wish casting going on..you look really stupid trying to argue a losing point and you lost that point before you ever started.....[lmao] |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 11:38:02 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: For all of the anti-due process remarks you've made about Trump, the irony of this post is amazing. How much due process does an Al Qaeda terrorist hiding out in the Pakistan tribal areas, plotting death to America, really deserve? You gonna suit up, travel half way across the world, risking your life to find him and bring him back? Thought so. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 11:40:54 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: How much due process does an Al Qaeda terrorist hiding out in the Pakistan tribal areas, plotting death to America, really deserve? You gonna suit up, travel half way across the world, risking your life to find him and bring him back? Thought so. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: For all of the anti-due process remarks you've made about Trump, the irony of this post is amazing. How much due process does an Al Qaeda terrorist hiding out in the Pakistan tribal areas, plotting death to America, really deserve? You gonna suit up, travel half way across the world, risking your life to find him and bring him back? Thought so. I'm just pointing out you're a hypocrite. The Constitution is only important to you so long as it fits your narrative. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 11:43:30 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: I'm just pointing out you're a hypocrite. The Constitution is only important to you so long as it fits your narrative. Please share for the class who receives constitutional protections and where it applies. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 11:52:57 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glklvr: Both her and Sotomayor. Complete morons that a first year law student could outwit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glklvr: Originally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. Both her and Sotomayor. Complete morons that a first year law student could outwit. They weren't appointed for their jurisprudence. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:00:16 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Please share for the class who receives constitutional protections and where it applies. Thanks. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: I'm just pointing out you're a hypocrite. The Constitution is only important to you so long as it fits your narrative. Please share for the class who receives constitutional protections and where it applies. Thanks. Are you looking for some Obama quotes here or something? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 7:40:12 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Yeah who are they going to believe... Your "research" or their own lying eyes and common sense. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Seadra_tha_Guineapig: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Slow down and read it again--it says the conspiracies (the actual crimes being charged) were built on the lying. He didn't get indicted for lying. That's the whole basis of the "conspiracies" so yes, he is indicted for "lying." At the heart of the matter, it's a "lie" that somewhere between 40-60% of Americans believe. Correction--40-60% of Republicans, and if you drill down on the details I suspect the real number of true believers is much less than that. The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. It's probably not very important and we don't need to get sidetracked on this, but as usual I think you have to drill down and see what actual questions were asked, and then what follow up happened. Here's an example more in line with what I have heard over the last few years on these questions: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate Among Republican-aligned adults, the share who believe there is solid evidence proving the election was not legitimate stands at 39%, while 30% say it is merely their suspicion that Biden did not win legitimately, and 29% say Biden’s election was legitimate. so 69% of republicans don't think the election was legit, that's a fuck of a lot of people The point is that a big portion of that number is just wish casting. The number of people who actually researched it and are convinced there is evidence of the fraud is quite small. Everybody else just wants to believe it's true because they wish it were true. Yeah who are they going to believe... Your "research" or their own lying eyes and common sense. No way I'm going to turn this thread into another pointless election fraud debate, but the point is that you tried to use public opinion as a way to justify Trump's behavior (as if the law says "don't do X unless polls say a majority agree with you" ), and I was just pointing out that actually a very small minority agreed with his position. But I'm sure you'd much rather ignore that and continue the endless repetition of lies--maybe just a few more times more and you'll gain new converts! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 9:29:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Missilegeek]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: No way I'm going to turn this thread into another pointless election fraud debate, but the point is that you tried to use public opinion as a way to justify Trump's behavior (as if the law says "don't do X unless polls say a majority agree with you" ), and I was just pointing out that actually a very small minority agreed with his position. But I'm sure you'd much rather ignore that and continue the endless repetition of lies--maybe just a few more times more and you'll gain new converts! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Seadra_tha_Guineapig: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Slow down and read it again--it says the conspiracies (the actual crimes being charged) were built on the lying. He didn't get indicted for lying. That's the whole basis of the "conspiracies" so yes, he is indicted for "lying." At the heart of the matter, it's a "lie" that somewhere between 40-60% of Americans believe. Correction--40-60% of Republicans, and if you drill down on the details I suspect the real number of true believers is much less than that. The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. It's probably not very important and we don't need to get sidetracked on this, but as usual I think you have to drill down and see what actual questions were asked, and then what follow up happened. Here's an example more in line with what I have heard over the last few years on these questions: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate Among Republican-aligned adults, the share who believe there is solid evidence proving the election was not legitimate stands at 39%, while 30% say it is merely their suspicion that Biden did not win legitimately, and 29% say Biden’s election was legitimate. so 69% of republicans don't think the election was legit, that's a fuck of a lot of people The point is that a big portion of that number is just wish casting. The number of people who actually researched it and are convinced there is evidence of the fraud is quite small. Everybody else just wants to believe it's true because they wish it were true. Yeah who are they going to believe... Your "research" or their own lying eyes and common sense. No way I'm going to turn this thread into another pointless election fraud debate, but the point is that you tried to use public opinion as a way to justify Trump's behavior (as if the law says "don't do X unless polls say a majority agree with you" ), and I was just pointing out that actually a very small minority agreed with his position. But I'm sure you'd much rather ignore that and continue the endless repetition of lies--maybe just a few more times more and you'll gain new converts! Your "point" is a lie. We've posted the receipts. If not a majority, then a HUGE percentage of Americans agree that the election had problems. A very relevant fact when trying to prosecute a guy for doing a few things to call the BS into question. It's awfully hard to build a case on "it's a lie, there was no fraud, therefore he is guilty of conspiracy to lie about fraud" when 1. It's hard to know if there is fraud before having any time or investigation into the matter. 2. Most people agree that it sure looked like fraud. 3. When polled, 20% of Americans admitted to voter fraud. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 7:36:10 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Your "point" is a lie. We've posted the receipts. If not a majority, then a HUGE percentage of Americans agree that the election had problems. A very relevant fact when trying to prosecute a guy for doing a few things to call the BS into question. It's awfully hard to build a case on "it's a lie, there was no fraud, therefore he is guilty of conspiracy to lie about fraud" when 1. It's hard to know if there is fraud before having any time or investigation into the matter. 2. Most people agree that it sure looked like fraud. 3. When polled, 20% of Americans admitted to voter fraud. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Seadra_tha_Guineapig: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Slow down and read it again--it says the conspiracies (the actual crimes being charged) were built on the lying. He didn't get indicted for lying. That's the whole basis of the "conspiracies" so yes, he is indicted for "lying." At the heart of the matter, it's a "lie" that somewhere between 40-60% of Americans believe. Correction--40-60% of Republicans, and if you drill down on the details I suspect the real number of true believers is much less than that. The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. It's probably not very important and we don't need to get sidetracked on this, but as usual I think you have to drill down and see what actual questions were asked, and then what follow up happened. Here's an example more in line with what I have heard over the last few years on these questions: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate Among Republican-aligned adults, the share who believe there is solid evidence proving the election was not legitimate stands at 39%, while 30% say it is merely their suspicion that Biden did not win legitimately, and 29% say Biden’s election was legitimate. so 69% of republicans don't think the election was legit, that's a fuck of a lot of people The point is that a big portion of that number is just wish casting. The number of people who actually researched it and are convinced there is evidence of the fraud is quite small. Everybody else just wants to believe it's true because they wish it were true. Yeah who are they going to believe... Your "research" or their own lying eyes and common sense. No way I'm going to turn this thread into another pointless election fraud debate, but the point is that you tried to use public opinion as a way to justify Trump's behavior (as if the law says "don't do X unless polls say a majority agree with you" ), and I was just pointing out that actually a very small minority agreed with his position. But I'm sure you'd much rather ignore that and continue the endless repetition of lies--maybe just a few more times more and you'll gain new converts! Your "point" is a lie. We've posted the receipts. If not a majority, then a HUGE percentage of Americans agree that the election had problems. A very relevant fact when trying to prosecute a guy for doing a few things to call the BS into question. It's awfully hard to build a case on "it's a lie, there was no fraud, therefore he is guilty of conspiracy to lie about fraud" when 1. It's hard to know if there is fraud before having any time or investigation into the matter. 2. Most people agree that it sure looked like fraud. 3. When polled, 20% of Americans admitted to voter fraud. I see you still haven't read the indictment.  But for the record, Rasmussen is no longer a legitimate and respected polling operation, their primary purpose now is to generate content for MAGA Media. Nothing they put out should be taking at face value. But even if that poll you're referring to was 100% correct and accurate, it still doesn't mean what you are implying it means. An illegitimate vote is not the same thing as what they polled. A vote can technically be illegal (address not updated, somebody else filled out the ballot, etc.) and yet still be an accurate representation of that particular individual voter's choice. That's a very different thing than actual fake ballots, more than one vote per person, manipulated ballot counts, etc. that would actually alter the outcome of the election. It's simply dishonest to pretend that the former is actually evidence of the latter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:23:54 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I see you still haven't read the indictment. But for the record, Rasmussen is no longer a legitimate and respected polling operation, their primary purpose now is to generate content for MAGA Media. Nothing they put out should be taking at face value. But even if that poll you're referring to was 100% correct and accurate, it still doesn't mean what you are implying it means. An illegitimate vote is not the same thing as what they polled. A vote can technically be illegal (address not updated, somebody else filled out the ballot, etc.) and yet still be an accurate representation of that particular individual voter's choice. That's a very different thing than actual fake ballots, more than one vote per person, manipulated ballot counts, etc. that would actually alter the outcome of the election. It's simply dishonest to pretend that the former is actually evidence of the latter. Indictments are no longer legitimate and respected either. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Seadra_tha_Guineapig: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By NavyDoc1: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. No. The question is: If Rand Paul became President, should he be able to direct his DoJ to prosecute Obama for the extrajudicial killing of Americans in Yemen? Did Obama act within the law? Questioning teh outcome of an election is illegal? He wasn't indicted for questioning the outcome. Absolutely he was. They dressed it up as "interference" but he didn't do or say anything different than his opponent in 2016 did when she lost. Sounds like you, like most people here, haven't actually read the indictment. Here, I'll be nice and help you: https://apnews.com/trump-election-2020-indictment https://i.postimg.cc/4x4qnftg/Screenshot-20240425-153118-Chrome.jpg How much of that did Hillary do? LOL Bull shit charges. Asking for legit elections isn't a crime. They're twisting shit, as usual. You belive J6 was an insurrection too, I assume. Oh look... another person who hasn't read it but still scoffs at it. Here's a little more: https://i.postimg.cc/W1rFFVP5/Screenshot-20240425-155021-Chrome.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Is that "asking for legit elections"? It says it right there. His "crime" was to bitch that the election was fraudulant. That is the entire basis of their "conspiracy" allegations. You're never going to read it, are you? Why can't you just be honest and say you aren't interested in knowing the facts instead of pretending you're making some valid point in this conversation? I did and it said so in the very screenshot you posted. "Lying about the election" was right there in black and white. https://i.postimg.cc/wBQ12kMJ/Screenshot-20240425-155043-Chrome.jpg Slow down and read it again--it says the conspiracies (the actual crimes being charged) were built on the lying. He didn't get indicted for lying. That's the whole basis of the "conspiracies" so yes, he is indicted for "lying." At the heart of the matter, it's a "lie" that somewhere between 40-60% of Americans believe. Correction--40-60% of Republicans, and if you drill down on the details I suspect the real number of true believers is much less than that. The polls have varied quite a bit, but the most respectable one, taken at the time to collect more accurate individual opinions, said 52% of voters believe fraud impacted the election... That's a majority of Americans and a significant number of Democrats. Article Subsequent polls tend to show somewhat lower. But it's impossible to say exactly why. Perhaps the nonstop Soviet style propaganda messaging from the left/media. Perhaps the polls are deliberately or in deliberately scewed by the pollsters. Another Rasmussen poll found that 20% of voters admitted to conducting fraud when using mail in ballots. It's probably not very important and we don't need to get sidetracked on this, but as usual I think you have to drill down and see what actual questions were asked, and then what follow up happened. Here's an example more in line with what I have heard over the last few years on these questions: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate Among Republican-aligned adults, the share who believe there is solid evidence proving the election was not legitimate stands at 39%, while 30% say it is merely their suspicion that Biden did not win legitimately, and 29% say Biden’s election was legitimate. so 69% of republicans don't think the election was legit, that's a fuck of a lot of people The point is that a big portion of that number is just wish casting. The number of people who actually researched it and are convinced there is evidence of the fraud is quite small. Everybody else just wants to believe it's true because they wish it were true. Yeah who are they going to believe... Your "research" or their own lying eyes and common sense. No way I'm going to turn this thread into another pointless election fraud debate, but the point is that you tried to use public opinion as a way to justify Trump's behavior (as if the law says "don't do X unless polls say a majority agree with you" ), and I was just pointing out that actually a very small minority agreed with his position. But I'm sure you'd much rather ignore that and continue the endless repetition of lies--maybe just a few more times more and you'll gain new converts! Your "point" is a lie. We've posted the receipts. If not a majority, then a HUGE percentage of Americans agree that the election had problems. A very relevant fact when trying to prosecute a guy for doing a few things to call the BS into question. It's awfully hard to build a case on "it's a lie, there was no fraud, therefore he is guilty of conspiracy to lie about fraud" when 1. It's hard to know if there is fraud before having any time or investigation into the matter. 2. Most people agree that it sure looked like fraud. 3. When polled, 20% of Americans admitted to voter fraud. I see you still haven't read the indictment. But for the record, Rasmussen is no longer a legitimate and respected polling operation, their primary purpose now is to generate content for MAGA Media. Nothing they put out should be taking at face value. But even if that poll you're referring to was 100% correct and accurate, it still doesn't mean what you are implying it means. An illegitimate vote is not the same thing as what they polled. A vote can technically be illegal (address not updated, somebody else filled out the ballot, etc.) and yet still be an accurate representation of that particular individual voter's choice. That's a very different thing than actual fake ballots, more than one vote per person, manipulated ballot counts, etc. that would actually alter the outcome of the election. It's simply dishonest to pretend that the former is actually evidence of the latter. Indictments are no longer legitimate and respected either. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:43:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: Indictments are no longer legitimate and respected either. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth Well then by all means you better not read it! God forbid you should expose yourself to the possibility you might read something that's not true! It's much better and safer to just keep talking about it based on what other people have told you it's all about. Maybe just cancel your Internet service. The Internet is a scary place, some people just can't handle it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:49:46 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Snip- But for the record, Rasmussen is no longer a legitimate and respected polling operation, their primary purpose now is to generate content for MAGA Media. Nothing they put out should be taking at face value. -Snip Can you cite or give anything to back this claim up? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:51:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Morlawn66]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: Indictments are no longer legitimate and respected either. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: Originally Posted By CMiller: I see you still haven't read the indictment. But for the record, Rasmussen is no longer a legitimate and respected polling operation, their primary purpose now is to generate content for MAGA Media. Nothing they put out should be taking at face value. But even if that poll you're referring to was 100% correct and accurate, it still doesn't mean what you are implying it means. An illegitimate vote is not the same thing as what they polled. A vote can technically be illegal (address not updated, somebody else filled out the ballot, etc.) and yet still be an accurate representation of that particular individual voter's choice. That's a very different thing than actual fake ballots, more than one vote per person, manipulated ballot counts, etc. that would actually alter the outcome of the election. It's simply dishonest to pretend that the former is actually evidence of the latter. Indictments are no longer legitimate and respected either. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth Evidently ONLY his sources are legit , Heartland Institute was involved in that poll and provides an analysis of it . Easy to find . It's the fraud thresholds that are important. IIRC it's down around 6% of mail in ballots were fraudulent then that would change 2020 results . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 9:00:33 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Well then by all means you better not read it! God forbid you should expose yourself to the possibility you might read something that's not true! It's much better and safer to just keep talking about it based on what other people have told you it's all about. Maybe just cancel your Internet service. The Internet is a scary place, some people just can't handle it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By APPARITION: Indictments are no longer legitimate and respected either. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth Well then by all means you better not read it! God forbid you should expose yourself to the possibility you might read something that's not true! It's much better and safer to just keep talking about it based on what other people have told you it's all about. Maybe just cancel your Internet service. The Internet is a scary place, some people just can't handle it. Be easier to click the ignore button but I consider these threads comedy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 9:26:26 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Can you cite or give anything to back this claim up? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Originally Posted By CMiller: Snip- But for the record, Rasmussen is no longer a legitimate and respected polling operation, their primary purpose now is to generate content for MAGA Media. Nothing they put out should be taking at face value. -Snip Can you cite or give anything to back this claim up? I would say it's been quite obvious for many years to anybody who has been paying attention. If you Google it there are plenty of relevant links for you to review. If you really care, there's plenty of analysis about their methodology, there are many ways that pollsters can create a desired outcome while still appearing to follow legitimate methods. Here's a simple example: The Harris Poll: Question # 1 - “If the election were held today, how likely are you to vote for Candidate B?” The Rasmussen Poll: Question # 1 - “Given that Candidate B once supported a crime bill that resulted in more than 500,000 African Americans and people of color eventually being locked up in prisons, how likely are you to vote for Candidate B in the next election?” I'm not going to get into the details, entire books have been written about this subject. But it's quite obvious that the results are always on the Republican side of the spectrum compared to all the other polls. They like to brag about how they got the 2016 outcome correct, even though they were actually significantly wrong about the actual vote distribution. The headlines generated by polls are almost completely useless. You need to either find professionals in the business who can evaluate the legitimacy of a poll, or at least try to dig into the details to see what exact questions were asked, how the poll was conducted, etc. and almost nobody ever does that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 9:51:34 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Are you looking for some Obama quotes here or something? No, just drawing attention to your ignorance on the matter, and your willingness to support radical Islamic terrorists to try and score meaningless political points. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 10:03:51 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Morlawn66: Evidently ONLY his sources are legit , Heartland Institute was involved in that poll and provides an analysis of it . Easy to find . It's the fraud thresholds that are important. IIRC it's down around 6% of mail in ballots were fraudulent then that would change 2020 results . Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Morlawn66: Originally Posted By APPARITION: Originally Posted By CMiller: I see you still haven't read the indictment. But for the record, Rasmussen is no longer a legitimate and respected polling operation, their primary purpose now is to generate content for MAGA Media. Nothing they put out should be taking at face value. But even if that poll you're referring to was 100% correct and accurate, it still doesn't mean what you are implying it means. An illegitimate vote is not the same thing as what they polled. A vote can technically be illegal (address not updated, somebody else filled out the ballot, etc.) and yet still be an accurate representation of that particular individual voter's choice. That's a very different thing than actual fake ballots, more than one vote per person, manipulated ballot counts, etc. that would actually alter the outcome of the election. It's simply dishonest to pretend that the former is actually evidence of the latter. Indictments are no longer legitimate and respected either. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth Evidently ONLY his sources are legit , Heartland Institute was involved in that poll and provides an analysis of it . Easy to find . It's the fraud thresholds that are important. IIRC it's down around 6% of mail in ballots were fraudulent then that would change 2020 results . It's not just polling. SCOWI declared the ballot boxes illegal as they would have needed legislative approval. The court has since flipped to a liberal majority so this may be brought up again and overturned even though they are not permitted in the statutes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 10:22:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: LordsOfDiscipline]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I see you still haven't read the indictment. But for the record, Rasmussen is no longer a legitimate and respected polling operation, their primary purpose now is to generate content for MAGA Media. Nothing they put out should be taking at face value. But even if that poll you're referring to was 100% correct and accurate, it still doesn't mean what you are implying it means. An illegitimate vote is not the same thing as what they polled. A vote can technically be illegal (address not updated, somebody else filled out the ballot, etc.) and yet still be an accurate representation of that particular individual voter's choice. That's a very different thing than actual fake ballots, more than one vote per person, manipulated ballot counts, etc. that would actually alter the outcome of the election. It's simply dishonest to pretend that the former is actually evidence of the latter. The Trump indictments come from prosecutors like this:  Trump Prosecutor PLEADS FIFTH when asked if he BROKE THE LAW investigating Trump! Mark Pomerantz served as a federal prosecutor in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, eventually leading the appellate unit; he departed in 1982 for private practice. He defended numerous cases involving organized crime; his law partner later estimated that they handled about 25 cases related to organized crime. In one notable case regarding mobster Anthony Indelicato, Pomerantz argued on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1989 that Indelicato had been involved with a single criminal episode—the simultaneous murder of Carmine Galante and two others in an attack in a Brooklyn restaurant— and thus could not be convicted of a "pattern of racketeering" as required for conviction under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The case was reheard en banc (i.e., by all twelve active judges on the appeals court), a rare step, leading to a decision clarifying the meaning of the RICO law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 10:23:33 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 6SJ7GT: It's not just polling. SCOWI declared the ballot boxes illegal as they would have needed legislative approval. The court has since flipped to a liberal majority so this may be brought up again and overturned even though they are not permitted in the statutes. In the election interference trial of Jeff Clarke ,he had an ex Fulton Co election official testify that they couldn't get the signature verification to work . Guy wouldn't certify results and resigned . So where else did this happen and they just stfu about it ? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 10:28:39 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I see your points and respect your position. But still, I disagree. So in your mind, joining an international terrorist organization, and leaving your country to help them, is not tantamount to renouncing citizenship? Why not? A cop has the right to shoot a US citizen, on us soil, in the back, if they are an active threat to society. But the US military doesn't have that right overseas? Why not? This isn't hard. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 10:30:12 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SteveOak: Really? Neil Gorsuch replaced Antonin Scalia. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:26:20 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: No, just drawing attention to your ignorance on the matter, and your willingness to support radical Islamic terrorists to try and score meaningless political points. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By StanGram: Are you looking for some Obama quotes here or something? No, just drawing attention to your ignorance on the matter, and your willingness to support radical Islamic terrorists to try and score meaningless political points. Lol. That is akin to saying your support of the 2A is supporting all gun crimes in the US. You like to pick and choose when the constitution matters, and you're a hypocrite. Trump said due process second. You said no due process at all. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:27:50 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Lol. That is akin to saying your support of the 2A is supporting all gun crimes in the US. You like to pick and choose when the constitution matters, and you're a hypocrite. Trump said due process second. You said no due process at all. You are out of your element junior. |
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
