1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Man or bear?
« on: May 12, 2024, 05:53:41 AM »Moose are kinda dumb though. It's squirrel you really need to watch out for.
Yes, Boris.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Moose are kinda dumb though. It's squirrel you really need to watch out for.
of course the president should be absolutely above the law, that's exactly the idea this country was founded on
Jack Smith is such a total fuck up, the judge cannot even decide when to begin the trial.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/judge-delays-trump-documents-trial-wont-set-new-date-5645658?utm_source=RTNews&src_src=RTNews&utm_campaign=rtbreaking-2024-05-07-5&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2024-05-07-5&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa%2BcidhsJxcPN%2FrQut3NAH7F5ww0LIzwgbOIBKcVOYUPVwjDotRvn
Two more weeks.
Why?Is the order relevant to the charges?FTFY.No.Yes.
I am sure you are not sure.I'm not sure the article you posted would agree.Wait...OMG!So, an illegitimate "special prosecutor" introduces a bald-faced lie to the court:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-says-jack-smith-should-be-arrested-after-documents-revelation-5644083?utm_source=RTNews&src_src=RTNews&utm_campaign=rtbreaking-2024-05-05-2&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2024-05-05-2&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa%2BcidhsJxcPN%2FrQut3NAH7F5ww0LIzwgbOIBKcVOYUPVwjDotRvn
Wait... OMG!
You mean Trump is being prosecuted for mishandling classified documents, yet the lead prosecutor's office is allowed to freely mishandle the same documents?
I'm not sure YOU would agree. Unless you think putting objects back in teh same box but not the exact same configuration is "mishandling".
I am sure submitting a false report of the order of contents of a box to a US District Court judge in a trial concerning the mishandling of documents is mishandling documents.
I'm not sure the article you posted would agree.Wait...OMG!So, an illegitimate "special prosecutor" introduces a bald-faced lie to the court:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-says-jack-smith-should-be-arrested-after-documents-revelation-5644083?utm_source=RTNews&src_src=RTNews&utm_campaign=rtbreaking-2024-05-05-2&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2024-05-05-2&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa%2BcidhsJxcPN%2FrQut3NAH7F5ww0LIzwgbOIBKcVOYUPVwjDotRvn
Wait... OMG!
You mean Trump is being prosecuted for mishandling classified documents, yet the lead prosecutor's office is allowed to freely mishandle the same documents?
So, an illegitimate "special prosecutor" introduces a bald-faced lie to the court:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-says-jack-smith-should-be-arrested-after-documents-revelation-5644083?utm_source=RTNews&src_src=RTNews&utm_campaign=rtbreaking-2024-05-05-2&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2024-05-05-2&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa%2BcidhsJxcPN%2FrQut3NAH7F5ww0LIzwgbOIBKcVOYUPVwjDotRvn
I'm just saying that you can't imprison someone with Secret Service protection.
That's not remotely true, especially for a high profile prisoner. Even if Trump were sentenced to "prison" it would likely end up a form of house arrest. Trump isn't going to go to some random state or federal prison. The Secret Service ensure Trump can't reveal things to people just as much as they protect him. Allowing a rambling old man who knows more national security information than most people into a prison is ridiculous.
Even cops have their own special protection and service personnel in prisons. I'd say Trump is quite a bit more high profile than random cops.
Do they want to train and equip the prison guards to provide secret service level security? That is the only way your argument makes sense that they are genuine in this.
The answer is no. They do not want guarantee Trump the same level of security.
Why should they?
If someone ends up in prison then they lose certain rights. Which is something I imagine you generally support. Unless it affects your cult leader.
It’s all moot anyway. There’s no way Trump will end up in prison
This is incorrect in regards to political power. Someone who is in prison can be elected President. They don't lose that right to be elected, or their powers.
Major presidential candidates have been given Secret Service protection to safeguard elections, and as a matter of law:
https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024QuoteWho Receives Protection?
The Secret Service does not determine who qualifies for protection, nor is the Secret Service empowered to independently initiate candidate protection.
Under 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7), "[m]ajor Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates," as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, are eligible for Secret Service protection.
Title 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7) authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to provide protection for major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates:
- Protection is authorized by the DHS Secretary after consultation with the Congressional Advisory Committee;
- The Congressional Advisory Committee includes: Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and one additional member selected by the others;
- Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within one year prior to the general election. Protection more than one year prior to the general election should only be granted in extraordinary, case by case circumstances in consultation with the committee, based on threat assessment and other factors.
The laws above say that major presidential candidates should be receiving Secret Service protection.Makes sense. Would you want Joe Biden to have SS protection in Jail? How would that even work?
Political assassinations have more effect than the benefit of a single party. No, I wouldn't want Joe Biden in his role of US President to be in a jail without Secret Service protection.Friend of yours, Tom?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68858408
Looks like a disgruntled Bernie Bro.https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1781453330855670010
Apparently the Congressional Left has gone from opposing gay marriage and upholding and respecting religious tenets to trying to get their opponent murdered.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2024/04/19/will-dems-bailout-of-johnson-turn-bitter-00132333
So what you're saying is that if Democrats were Republicans, Republicans would vote for them.
Tom gonna Tom.
Correct. Republicans see traditionalism and conservatism as a moral and fiscal vote. This is why Democrats have failed in defaming Trump.But he is defamed. You said so yourself that they seem him as unfit and immoral. It just doesn't matter. If Satan were a Republican, they'd vote for him.
It is not enough to defame him. You have provided something better.
In previous eras Democrats would have taken the tactic to move many of their positions back towards the center, or even to the right, and include their own specific pet liberal topics which have mass voter appeal. This is why it is said that Democrats were more conservative at various points in time. They sought to match the success of their opponents with some added liberalism, largely focusing on the strength and appeal of their positions.
I don't think this tactic of defaming Trump is working out for you guys.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/voters-cnn-trump-unfit-vote-for-him-anywayQuoteVoters shock CNN when they reveal who they're voting for after saying Trump is unfit for office: 'But I'm voting for him'
APRIL 17, 2024
Democrats love to harp on Donald Trump's moral fitness, arguing his criminal proceedings and moral character render him unfit for the presidency.
CNN correspondent Gary Tuchman recently spoke with voters in Roberts County, Texas, where he discovered that voters agree with that argument. But at the end of the day, those same voters admitted they will still support Trump over President Joe Biden on Election Day.
Voter Kay Swart described Trump's moral character as "terrible," something that "can't get much lower than it is."
"He continues to make crazy comments about being a dictator first day and repercussions against people who he feels have wronged him," Swart continued.
But, to Tuchman's surprise, neither Trump's moral character nor the possibility that he will be criminally convicted will deter Swart or her husband, Ron, from voting for Trump.
"I don't think he's fit, but I'm voting for him," Kay Swart said.
Ron, moreover, agreed that Trump "most definitely" possess poor ethics and morals. But in his view, anything is better than Biden.
"I feel like as wrong as it's going to be to have [Trump] for president, he's still going to be a lot better president for the United States than what we're going with Joe Biden and the Democrats," Ron Swart said. "I really feel like that we are not going be able to survive another four years of the Democrats in charge."
The V-Safe is where the data screened from VAERS (by the CDC) is presented. That had nothing to do with the VAERS reports.
At this point, the CDC has looked at 780,000 reports of injury from the coof vaxx and has confirmed they are legitimate.
The article linked by Dr. Mittal states a lawsuit needed to be filed just to get access to this data from the CDC.
Sounds like a coverup, uh?
https://meganredshaw.substack.com/p/cdc-releases-780000-covid-vaccine?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=395439&post_id=143267075&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2s9pt&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
It should be evident at this point why the CDC fought so hard to keep this information from being released. They likely knew that if it were made public, they would have better success marketing their shots to a group of penguins.
But don’t take my word for it—comb through the data yourself.
Incorrect.I think you fail to realize these are reports that have been screened by the CDC and have been found to be legitimate.https://www.linkedin.com/posts/draryan_cdc-releases-780000-covid-vaccine-injury-activity-7181846614393655296-leK2
"Despite what the CDC says, it’s unclear whether the agency was asleep at the wheel or intentionally steering the Titanic into an iceberg."
780,000...that is a fairly large number.
780,000 people who posted whatever they wanted at anytime. Yep, totally legitimate and helpful and in no way able to be abused.
"Talaat says the best source of research stemming from VAERS is the CDC, because they are able to trace the records backward and verify them."
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt
Which hasn't been done.
https://icandecide.org/v-safe-data/
Read em for yourself. The raw data (which you are referencing) has alot of "no." "None" "just got the shot" "soreness" , etc...
So its much, much less than what you wrote.
The CDC has screened the VAERS.
ICAN has absolutely nothing to do with the report issued by the CDC.
You are being highly disingenuous with your posts, when there is absolutely no reason to do so except to spread deliberately false information.
I think you fail to realize these are reports that have been screened by the CDC and have been found to be legitimate.https://www.linkedin.com/posts/draryan_cdc-releases-780000-covid-vaccine-injury-activity-7181846614393655296-leK2
"Despite what the CDC says, it’s unclear whether the agency was asleep at the wheel or intentionally steering the Titanic into an iceberg."
780,000...that is a fairly large number.
780,000 people who posted whatever they wanted at anytime. Yep, totally legitimate and helpful and in no way able to be abused.
"Talaat says the best source of research stemming from VAERS is the CDC, because they are able to trace the records backward and verify them."
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/draryan_cdc-releases-780000-covid-vaccine-injury-activity-7181846614393655296-leK2
"Despite what the CDC says, it’s unclear whether the agency was asleep at the wheel or intentionally steering the Titanic into an iceberg."
780,000...that is a fairly large number.