121

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM »

Why does it help the prosecution?

Are you under the impression the jackass top-notch prosecutor is interested in making arguments in front of a court that will harm the prosecution?

Are you saying Trump's own lawyers will make arguments that will harm his own case?

Where did I mention Trump's lawyers?

Well I assume someone's gonna argue in Trump's defence.  Right?

Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

I know the entirety of all these cases, regardless of reported outcomes, are simply another step toward solidifying the current mob rule in the country.

Nobody is going to win in the end.

So you agree that Trump knows he'll lose and must delay until he can be president again.

Also:
Wouldn't mob rule be a large group of people who agree on the same thing and works to enact that into law?  Sounds like democracy to me.

Yeah, mobs are democracy to you.

SMDH...

And whats your version?  A bunch of people breaking into the capitol building because their favorite person lost?

No, Trump isn't responsible for this specific decision, but he is responsible for delaying his trial in the hopes of being elected president before he can be convicted, and part of that strategy is his claiming presidential immunity. Wrangling over this subject is not "the required steps" or "the required process" for prosecuting Trump. It's an absurd idea to begin with. Of course the president shouldn't be immune to prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This is only a legal question because Trump demanded that it be, and he only demanded that it be, again, to help him try to run out the clock. Deliberately gaming the legal system is not due process, and trying to avoid such a tactic is not circumventing due process.

Are you stating for the record the responsible persons found at all levels in the judicial halls of the US are incapable of preventing litigants from "gaming the legal system"?

Last I checked, when you are charged, you are required to provide a plea and then the judgment comes down, not seeking any portion of a decision regarding material fact prior, such as what the jackass top-notch prosecutor was seeking when he tried to "game the legal system."

GTFO with your tears about "gaming," or start a thread in the lounge concerning casinos or something dealing with Vegas or Monte Carlo.

Wait... Do.. do you think Jack Smith was asking SCOTUS to rule on the case without an actual argument/trial being done?  Because thats what you seem to imply above.

122

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 26, 2023, 04:45:06 PM »

Why does it help the prosecution?

Are you under the impression the jackass top-notch prosecutor is interested in making arguments in front of a court that will harm the prosecution?

Are you saying Trump's own lawyers will make arguments that will harm his own case?

Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

I know the entirety of all these cases, regardless of reported outcomes, are simply another step toward solidifying the current mob rule in the country.

Nobody is going to win in the end.

So you agree that Trump knows he'll lose and must delay until he can be president again.

Also:
Wouldn't mob rule be a large group of people who agree on the same thing and works to enact that into law?  Sounds like democracy to me.

123

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 26, 2023, 03:50:53 PM »

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason.

What question?

You are blaming Trump for the decision of SCOTUS to publically bitch slap the top-notch federal prosecutor who wanted to circumvent due process?

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court? Why isn't Trump trying to help the prosecution in this case?"

Honestly if you're gonna quote me, at least read it first.
Point is: Trump had the chance to make all his problems go away faster but he wants it to take longer.  I think its weird but if you want American bled dry by all these court cases, so be it.  Probably gonna keep Trump from winning too since he'll be too busy defending himself in court to campaign.

I fixed your question to read for clarity.

Point is, Trump didn't bring charges.

He is not evading any of the court cases.

And he is not a fan of signing on to an attempt by a jackass prosecutor to skip the required steps to prosecute him.

The top-notch jackass prosecutor bringing this case is the one circumventing due process in his idiotic attempt to skip the required process, seeking validation outside of procedure, and that is what SCOTUS wrote:

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied."

Notice that this bitch slap is a relatively swift and efficient bitch slap, similar to what anyone would do to any other insignificant insect.

Why does it help the prosecution?  Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

124

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 26, 2023, 10:46:59 AM »

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason.

What question?

You are blaming Trump for the decision of SCOTUS to publically bitch slap the top-notch federal prosecutor who wanted to circumvent due process?

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?"

Honestly if you're gonna quote me, at least read it first.
Point is: Trump had the chance to make all his problems go away faster but he wants it to take longer.  I think its weird but if you want American bled dry by all these court cases, so be it.  Probably gonna keep Trump from winning too since he'll be too busy defending himself in court to campaign.

125

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 25, 2023, 11:18:51 AM »

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.

Markjo is right.
Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?  Do you know what happens if SCOTUS rules in his favor?  He wins.  He wins EVERY SINGLE CASE!
The ban on colorado becomes illegal.
And he doesn't have to pay millions in legal fees to fight bogus court cases.  Jack Smith is immediately made pointless as he had no case.  And Biden loses the election for putting up a sham case from the start.

There is literally no upside for Trump to not want SCOTUS to decide it now.  The longer it takes, the more it works through the courts, the more crooked Joe can milk the American tax payers, the more money Trump has to use on lawyers instead of the campaign, and the undecided voters or the states that remove the choice.


Trump could have ended thall this crap before the primaries.  Instead he wants to drag it out in appeal after appeal until it goes to scotus anyway.  Because whoever loses the lower courts will apppeal.

So as you parrot Trump, remember just how much of a scumbag you are for waning Joe to keep winning and keep draining you, Trump, and America of money.

^More comic relief.

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason. 

126

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 25, 2023, 08:38:45 AM »

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.

Markjo is right.
Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?  Do you know what happens if SCOTUS rules in his favor?  He wins.  He wins EVERY SINGLE CASE!
The ban on colorado becomes illegal.
And he doesn't have to pay millions in legal fees to fight bogus court cases.  Jack Smith is immediately made pointless as he had no case.  And Biden loses the election for putting up a sham case from the start.

There is literally no upside for Trump to not want SCOTUS to decide it now.  The longer it takes, the more it works through the courts, the more crooked Joe can milk the American tax payers, the more money Trump has to use on lawyers instead of the campaign, and the undecided voters or the states that remove the choice.


Trump could have ended thall this crap before the primaries.  Instead he wants to drag it out in appeal after appeal until it goes to scotus anyway.  Because whoever loses the lower courts will apppeal.

So as you parrot Trump, remember just how much of a scumbag you are for waning Joe to keep winning and keep draining you, Trump, and America of money.

127

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 23, 2023, 06:18:43 AM »

Looks like Trump's delay, delay, delay strategy is working.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jack-smith/index.html

Is it just me, or does it seem that if it's true that Trump does indeed enjoy presidential immunity, then he would want the Supreme Court to say so as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges can just go away and he can focus on destroying democracy once and for all?

But crooked Joe controls all the courts, so he needs to be president again before these trials or he'll definitely lose.

128

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 20, 2023, 10:39:42 PM »

Clearly, the only solution is for the Democrats to replace Biden on the ballot shortly before the election and not allow Republicans to run a lengthy negative campaign against them.

They won't.  Because the encumbert president is almost always on the ballot.  Stupid 2 party system.

129

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 20, 2023, 06:22:21 PM »

Looks like Trump might not be on the Colorado ballot.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html

Look, fellas, our democracy is in danger. If we don't start banning people like Trump from running, people might elect the wrong candidate instead of the right one.

Hey.  If congress wanted Trump, they should have repealed section 3 when they had the chance.

130

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 20, 2023, 07:27:38 AM »

Looks like Trump might not be on the Colorado ballot.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html

Its ok, colorado usually votes blue due to denver.  So Trump can still win.  Right?

131

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 19, 2023, 07:47:54 PM »

Our democracy is in danger!

We have a democracy?

132

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 14, 2023, 04:57:37 AM »

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-selling-pieces-mugshot-suit-read-the-fine-print-2023-12

From the article:
"In the event President Trump is unable to attend the Bonus Gala Dinner," or the dinner cannot happen for any other reason, "then we may reschedule the Bonus Gala Dinner or individuals who qualified for the Bonus Gala Dinner will be awarded a limited edition Trump NFT in lieu thereof, as determined by us in our sole discretion," according to the terms.

Yeah, you may have to wait until Trump gets out of jail before he can make it for your dinner.

Pfft.  And dine with the peasants?
No no, you get the limited edition NTF, which is only limited because no one wanted to buy it.

133

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 09, 2023, 01:41:45 PM »

Literally the first uploaded video proves it wasn't a peaceful protest where they were let in.

134

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 09, 2023, 01:26:17 PM »

https://cha.house.gov/cha-subcommittee-reading-room-fe781e74-d577-4f64-93cc-fc3a8dd8df18



Old news I haven't heard yet.

This is the video from jan 6.  Which isn't making conservatives happy because, apparently, blurring faces is a sure sign of conspiracy by the deep state.

135

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 06, 2023, 08:13:56 PM »

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/06/1217562544/trump-and-insiders-craft-plans-for-unprecedented-power

"Look, I'd only be a Dictator on Day 1, ok?" - Trump to Fox News

This SHOULD be a political death sentence.  But its not.  Its MOTIVATING.  That's right folks, America WANTS a dictatorship.  It wants one party to rule over all.  To crush the other.  To push them out of government for all time.

And the freedom loving conservatives will cheer as they stomp on freedom for all.

136

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: December 06, 2023, 07:49:32 PM »

Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?

Probably because they aren't investigating anyone else.  I'm rather certain the number of people, including the Trumps, who personally benefitted from a relative in high office is pretty damn high.  Do you agree every single political family should be investigated to check for such wrongdoings?  Maybe make it illegal (because its not).

137

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: December 05, 2023, 08:20:13 PM »

We appear to be at the point where you guys are claiming that multiple Biden family members were being bribed by foreign country entities to trick Joe Biden into influencing policy decisions, but Joe Biden didn't know about it.

No one is suggesting this.
Also, please point to policies that the VP of America enacted on behalf of foriegn governments through Hunter. >_>

So far, they might have Hunter Biden on selling his father's position for his own gain.  But they haven't linked anything illegal to Joe Biden.

Ok. So you admit that Hunter Biden was selling access to his father's power (through tricking his father into influencing or doing things). How can you maintain that congress doesn't need to investigate that?

If I tell you that Bill Gates is my best friend and I can totally put in a good word for you, does that mean Bill Gates is doing what I say?

Please stop putting words in my mouth.  One can sell a relationship for gain without actually doing anything.  Hunter doesn't need to even communicate to his father to use his father's position to his advantage.  Networking is literally the most effective way to get a job and what better way than to namedrop your famous dad? 

138

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: December 05, 2023, 08:32:40 AM »

Is trying to profit off the presidency and informally sell access to power illegal or not? You can't say that it's not a big deal when Trump and his family do it and then flip out when a couple of Biden's relatives (not even Biden himself, just his relatives) try to do something similar.

And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.

Don't let conservatives rewrite history on this. There is ample evidence that Russia wanted Trump elected and interfered with the 2016 election to achieve that goal. Now, is there any proof that Trump only won because of that interference? No. Does this mean that the 2016 election was somehow invalid or illegitimate? No. And is acknowledging this interference in any way "equivalent" to Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election? No, absolutely not. But it happened, no matter how much conservatives wish that it didn't.

You misunderstand.  I meant that Trump was being directly influenced/bribed/blackmailed by Russia, not that Russia wanted him in power.  Thats a given.

139

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: December 04, 2023, 11:22:43 PM »

They do claim to have evidence for the Biden's pay-for-play schemes - https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/

They've had the same claim for what.... 4 years? 
Trump has claimed election fraud for 8.
And democrats claimed Trump had russian influence for 2.

None of them produced any usable evidence so you'll excuse me if I don't trust a press release.

It's not the same four year old claims. They have been posting new evidence and new claims to the link I gave all year. They most recently added something today December 4th -

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-direct-monthly-payments-to-joe-biden-from-hunter-bidens-business-entity%ef%bf%bc/

"WASHINGTON—Today, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) released subpoenaed bank records revealing Hunter Biden’s business entity, Owasco PC, made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden. "

What years?  That would seem to be important.  And how much?  Because if its like $1,000 a month for the political campaign, it would make sense.  Hell, every politician gets money from businesses, sad as it is.

Hunter Biden is currently under an investigation by the Department of Justice for using the Owasco PC corporate account for tax evasion and other serious crimes.

I look forward to seeing how that goes or if charges are ever brought.

Following subpoenas to obtain Biden family associates’ bank records, Chairman Comer issued subpoenas for Hunter and James Biden’s personal and business bank records. The House Oversight Committee has identified over 20 shell companies and uncovered how the Bidens and their associates raked in over $24 million dollars between 2015 and 2019 by selling Joe Biden as “the brand.” Financial records obtained show Hunter Biden’s business account, Owasco PC, received payments from Chinese-state linked companies and other foreign nationals and companies."

And?  Selling famous people as a brand is a time honored tradition.  Tho wasn't Trump president during half of that time, not Biden?  Sounds like we need a better breakdown of the time period.  If biden was sold as "the brand" when he wasn't VP, wouldn't help your case.  Hell, him being VP and being sold as a brand isn't really all that unusual. 
I mean, Trump himself made $24 in 2018 alone.  You know, when he was president.

And Chinese-state linked companies needs clarification because that means nothing.  Tik-Tok is a chinese state linked company and if you get ad money from tik-tok... you get money from a chinese-state linked company! He could also own stocks in these companies, which would earn him income from the stocks and the company itself.  They should have released more information like which companies, how much, and what the payments were for.

So far, they might have Hunter Biden on selling his father's position for his own gain.  But they haven't linked anything illegal to Joe Biden.

140

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 04, 2023, 07:29:27 AM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67598948

Are you MAGA lot sick of all the winning yet?

Ironic comment from you since Trump is now winning the polls.

https://www.the-daily-record.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/11/19/donald-trump-leads-joe-biden-young-voters-2024-poll/71646789007/



https://www.enmnews.com/2023/11/29/tracking-polls-show-trump-at-his-all-time-high-as-a-presidential-candidate/#google_vignette



https://emersoncollegepolling.com/november-2023-national-poll-trump-maintains-lead-over-biden/



https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/11/26/biden-trump-2024-election-battleground-polls/71667419007/



https://www.westernjournal.com/uh-oh-nbc-news-drops-new-trump-vs-biden-poll-never-result-like/



https://themessenger.com/politics/poll-trump-continues-to-lead-biden-exclusive-2



https://electionwire.com/surprise-in-the-polls-trump-takes-the-lead/#google_vignette



https://newstarget.com/2023-12-01-joe-biden-performing-poorly-different-opinion-polls.html

Remember that time Clinton was winning all the polls?

Plus, Trump isn't even the party nominee.  Should probably wait for that one.