Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Double_R
Google reasonable person standard
Google "dodging the question".
Ask chat GPT why Hur said "willfully" means "knowing he took classified material" rather than "thinking he had a right to keep classified material"?Because that’s not what it means.
and Hur speaks only falsehood... right, Thanks Chat GPT.
[Double_R] It’s not gaslighting, it’s pure facts.[ADOL] Mostly accusations[Double_R #56] Supported with clear evidence, and most of which Trump is not even contesting. His defense is that he had a right to those documents.[ADOL] I know, but what makes you a hypocrite is that your theory is that he didn't have a right to those documents and yet you refuse to admit the implications of this "law" for anyone else (in history or present).[Double_R] And what makes you obtuse is the fact that you can’t get through your head that the mere possession of those documents is not the issue. No matter how many times I’ve explained this you just keep repeating the same nonsense - cause you are wrong here and you know it.For the fourth or fifth time now, walking out of a store with an unpaid item is not where the crime is committed, the crime is the purposeful selection and concealment of that item from those whom it belonged. This is first grade level stuff.[ADOL] Also (for the fourth or fifth time): the concealing is the accusation. That is not conceded to by Trump or me.[Double_R] That’s where evidence comes in, and it’s overwhelming.[ADOL] So did he concede or not?[Double_R] The lack of the defendants concession is irrelevant to what the evidence proves.
Full context restored with some post numbers and emphasis added.
So to review: You said Trump is not even contesting "most" of the "evidence". Then you say the "issue" is not "mere possession", rather it is the "purposeful selection and concealment from those whom it belonged."
Turns out that the only "evidence" Trump doesn't contest is what you dismissed as an issue, i.e. the fact of "mere possession".
He does not concede that he concealed anything. He does not concede that the documents (as copies) were the property of anyone but himself. He certainly doesn't concede that it was an adjudicated matter and was using lawyers to contest the claim of ownership. Indeed precedent is clearly on his side as previous rulings have stated that the advise given to the president (everything presented to him classified or not) is sacrosanct and irrevocable.
Is there anything of relevance (to your absurd theory of the law) that he has not contested?
Created:
Posted in:
I might comment more on these later:
Created:
Posted in:
Duh, it was a fake election. They swore to defend the constitution and pretending fake elections are real elections is failing to defend.
Created:
Posted in:
Yep, sequel to the ever popular "summer of love".
All the "love" and "freedom" fills graveyards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
There was no insurrection and no one has been charged with the "crime of insurrection".I wonder why no one has been charged?tons of people involved in the insurrection. Many have gone to prison.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
From whom?How does one know if one is in a cult?Intervention
Their trapped in a closed loop cult spiral that can only lead to a few possible conclusions, none of which are good for them, tho maybe good for humanity. I dunno
So no escape. Pity you'll never know.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
For the fourth or fifth time now, walking out of a store with an unpaid item is not where the crime is committedFor the 5th-nth time: yes it is whether most people would prosecute or not.You are grossly ignorant of how these things work. Here is a sample; NY law on larceny:§ 155.05 Larceny; defined.1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.
Ah, so if the crime requires intent; then one cannot intend to deprive another of property if one does not believe it is the property of another.
In fact I know from experience that if you call the cops and the other guys says "no this is mine" 99.5% of the time the cops will say "civil matter, see ya".
Just like nearly every law on the books anywhere, intent is purposefully built into the law.
How convenient that you know Trump's intent. Where is intent built into the law you claim he broke?
the crime is the purposeful selection and concealment of that item from those whom it belonged.Find it in the law.Ok. Let’s let ChatGPT work:
Ask chat GPT why Hur said "willfully" means "knowing he took classified material" rather than "thinking he had a right to keep classified material"?
Notice how no one, not even Trump, is accusing Biden of any of this.
Well there is a base level of honesty that is hard to overcome. It is lawfare and is nonsense.
For example, when Biden said that his notes were his to keep, was that "making false statements to federal investigators" or "obstructing the investigation"?
When there were more documents in his house than he personally reported, and in different locations, was that "making false statements to federal investigators" or "obstructing the investigation"?
I can put my derangement simulator hat on and say: yes.
Trump did
So believe fools and so claim liars and fools.
Also (for the fourth or fifth time): the concealing is the accusation. That is not conceded to by Trump or me.That’s where evidence comes in, and it’s overwhelming.
So did he concede or not? Yes this is one of those questions I will just keep asking until you throw a fit and quit. Your refusal to be bogged down by your own statements is a problem that must be made your problem and not my problem.
Personal opinions are what matters here.
Not to me. I care about the truth which means I care about logic. I am not interested in the epistemology within your skull that has nothing to do with reality or a rational person's perception of reality.
the issue is whether he deserves to again be granted unlimited access to our classified secrets
"Saying the quiet part out loud" is the appropriate comment here. You never believed he had a right to know classified things so you think you are entitled to lie about the law.
Nothing is classified to the president and nothing is beyond his ability to declassify.
At this point government secrets do more harm than good. We all deserve unlimited access to everything they deem classified. That's my opinion, but my opinion doesn't change what the law says and neither does yours or any of your TDS brethren.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
It won't take years and it also won't detect much less repair fraud.I heard that if they want to recount the votes all over the country it'll take years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
HistoryBuff is immune to facts. You waste you are only wasting your time. He'll let you do all the work then pretend like nothing was proven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I will skip that thanks.
There was never much hope you'd do anything else.
Inciting an insurrection is a crime. did you not know that?
I wonder why no one has been charged?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Just like they impeached Trump for organizing a rally.no, they impeached him for inciting an insurrection for the purposes of overthrowing democracy. which he did.
Right, and Kamala Harris conspired to subvert democracy and destroy the constitution. It's easy when you can just make stuff up.
Deshowitz and Justice Curtis agree.Dershowitz is trump's lawyer.
You are a cultist who has proven you are immune to facts on multiple occasions. Top examples:
You claimed Trump would not condemn nazis. Then you doubled down several times before pretending that you missphrased your claim when there is no plausible typo or grammar that could have made your claim true.
You claimed that "European sensibilities" were not what ended the European slave trade and then as an example you gave a European king apparently having to moderate his mistreatment of slaves because the news of such mistreatment reached his populace. You never admitted the contradiction, you will never admit you're wrong no matter how clearly it is proven.
So his statements opinions mean very little.
To you, but as proven by your history on this site; you are a irrational dishonest cultist.
And do you mean the justice curtis that has been dead for over 100 years?
Yep, the one who interacted with founders and whose judgement some of those founders agreed with.
Somehow I don't think he has an opinion on what trump did.
He has an opinion about whether there needs to be a crime to impeach, and it is a different opinion from Maxine Waters who said:
"Impeachment is whatever congress says it is, there is no law."
The reason she said that is because there was no law Trump broke. If they could find a law, they would surely have cited it. If they had tried to cite a law, all the precedent of instances where that law was used before would come into it and that makes it hard to make shit up. That is why they cited no law.
Wylted's plan requires only that congress and the supreme court follow Maxine Water's claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Predictions?
The democrats are attempting to cheat. Some of their attempts are assuredly not detected or prevented: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10628/posts/479874
The quantity of the cheating is immeasurable but could plausibly be on the order of 5%. Whatever the reported results we will never know the actual will of the people on this day, we are on the path to civil war until real elections return to the land.
That's my prediction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's what Dershowitz said about Trump's impeachments. The house didn't care.This is what he said:
This is what he said: https://youtu.be/uqmhfyH09jM?t=450
You want to impeach Kamala for something that isn't, in any way, illegal or against the rules.
Just like they impeached Trump for organizing a rally.
That's also incredibly stupid.
Deshowitz and Justice Curtis agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's what Dershowitz said about Trump's impeachments. The house didn't care.they can impeach her on the grounds she was not elected as a candidate by her partythat's not grounds for impeachment. It is not illegal.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
His defense is that he had a right to those documents.I know, but what makes you a hypocrite is that your theory is that he didn't have a right to those documents and yet you refuse to admit the implications of this "law" for anyone elseAnd what makes you obtuse is the fact that you can’t get through your head that the mere possession of those documents is not the issue.
Your personal opinions are of no relevance. The law you people claim to be interpreting is.
No matter how many times I’ve explained this you just keep repeating the same nonsense - cause you are wrong here and you know it.
Flatearthers can explain the same thing many times too. It's just that they're wrong every time.
For the fourth or fifth time now, walking out of a store with an unpaid item is not where the crime is committed
For the 5th-nth time: yes it is whether most people would prosecute or not.
the crime is the purposeful selection and concealment of that item from those whom it belonged.
Find it in the law. How about you try to steal a car from a dealership, hard to hide a whole car. See if that gets you off the hook.
Also (for the fourth or fifth time): the concealing is the accusation. That is not conceded to by Trump or me. He thought he had a right to keep whatever he wanted and was providing some documents as a courtesy. Just like Biden and everyone else in history since classification existed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Right, Trump isn't farting around this time, he goes to court before the elections.
Don't get too excited.
There were people who sued before in 2020. They were told "go away, nothing bad has happened to yet. Wait until there are 'damages in fact'."
Then afterwards they said "You waited too long you knew the rules before the election." There is only one way this turns around, and that is if the wave of real people is too large to cancel out with cheating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Well you've captured the 'creativity' of the lawfare enemy from within quite well with this story but it's not like it's a fair playing field.
A simple majority in the senate can't remove anyone.
That's why they play in different sandboxes these days. Judges and AGs, you can do all sorts of shit with only a few people that way. You can do friendly lawsuits. "Oh you nasty you better remove all semblance of an actual election" "Oh no the humanity I guess we have no choice. What do you say judge?"
Created:
Posted in:
There are a lot of stories floating around and a lot of them are in long livestreams that aren't ideal for saving or posting.
Here is a continuation of #147
The thumbnail is "we knew it was them" and that pretty much sums it up.
For all my talk of small conspiracy sizes, and those are still probably the vast majority; there are bound to be some larger conspiracies and this appears to be one of them.
The company called "FieldCorps" and "Field and Media Corps" is based in Arizona, another state with plenty of evidence of election subversion. The company's website listed a number of democratic campaign as clients including "Biden-Harris, Mark Kelly, and Arizona Democrats."
In plain speak, a company being paid by the Harris campaign tried to tender thousands of fraudulent voter registrations including a dead person.
As I have said before in this thread and on this forum, they aren't looking for dead people to register; they don't know they're dead. The reason dead voters are smoking guns is because dead people don't register to vote whether a democrat voter fraud conspiracy knows they are dead or not.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It’s not gaslighting, it’s pure facts.Mostly accusationsSupported with clear evidence
Don't believe you.
and most of which Trump is not even contesting.
Trump still fails to deny he has a house and breathes air huh? Your notion of relevance requires a cult indoctrinated derangement to understand.
His defense is that he had a right to those documents.
I know, but what makes you a hypocrite is that your theory is that he didn't have a right to those documents and yet you refuse to admit the implications of this "law" for anyone else (in history or present).
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I invite such a move, anything that brings more legitimacy to our side.
If the military breaks for the right nothing else will matter.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The kind I'm pissed off at would kill me :p
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The whore mother? Is that saying the other guy's mother is a whore?5. La puta madre!!! (Fuck!!!)
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
That is a distinct possibility.Harris is going to win no matter what people want.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
There will be court cases all the way to Jan 6 either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Reread op
I realized long ago he doesn't actually read. His TDS brain looks for keywords which match to prerecorded left-tribe propaganda and/or very stupid jokes.
Honestly the only way I can tell is apart from FLRW is FLRW's sexual orientation (strongly attracted to slovenian first ladies he can't have).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Don't go. The rule law is past tense in this country. Even if you destroy no property and harm no one you will be railroaded and sentences to months and years in prison. Protests are more likely to be traps set by the FBI where they will provide the violent provocateurs even if you don't bring any.
The vile scum which inhabit the city of DC are zombie drones and would not recognize justice if it was taped to the inside of their eyelids.
If it comes time for civil war, deny territory and impede logistical support to blue cities. That's all you need to do to win.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I see what you did there, clever :)
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It’s not gaslighting, it’s pure facts.
Mostly accusations, and even facts without context can be used to create a false narrative.
"Adolf Hitler was a painter who loved his dog. He had a family, children, a wife. He improved infrastructure of his nation. Still, millions of people wanted to kill him."
Pure facts, but still gaslighting.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That would be the end of the gaslight uniparty and the beginning of liberty and freedom.
Well there would be a lot of blood inbetween...
Created:
Posted in:
I've made the point before that everyone is a criminal when there are so many absurd laws, and the fact that they can get you if they want is the definition of tyranny. Discretion does not bring justice, it brings confusion as people are railroaded when others aren't.
This is also strong evidence (as if anymore was needed) that the dogs of the state are fucking evil because no sane person could think they were doing the right thing. These are the people who enforced ineffective covid measures. These are the people who put you in prison for marijuana. These are the people who hold you for 48 hours because you didn't respect their athoriteea.
I support and endorse the violent overthrow not only of governments that violate their own constitution, but also those which abduct and kill squirrels to maintain their control over the population.
Created:
Posted in:
A non-citizen caught attempting to vote in Michigan.
This is not an example integrity because they got lucky and caught this one. Clearly you just have to say "I'm a citizen" on a MVA form and everybody just believes you until proven otherwise. I think the appropriate sound track for some of the entries in this thread are "dum dum dum dum" from South Park's mormon episode.
"See, you believe it now?"
"Well yeah sure, why would he make it up?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
It's not as if the democrats haven't done the same, using words or phrases that can be similar to past despots, dictators
That would be an interesting compilation. This one would rank highly:
So ugh, she is worried about the state losing total control over expressed opinions. How not fascist of her.
Created:
Posted in:
Poor Kamala joins Kim Jong Un and the great dragon (Satan) on Best.Korea's list of endorsed leaders. I feel like I'm forgetting a lot of interesting names on that list as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So it's ok to disenfranchise voters sometimes?
As long as it is to convenience local government, never if it's to prevent fraud.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
My inability to convince you says way more about you than it does about me.
The way you keep trying to gaslight and the fact that I keep giving you another chance to be reasonable says plenty about us both.
Created:
-->
@borz_kriffle
I tried to talk to you like a human
How rude, I identify as an endangered snail.
because I’m sure that you won’t accept any of the current evidence as even a little incriminating
Well that's sorted out then. How about this, you pick a so called crime, and I'll go find where Double R tried his best, and if you think you can do better than Double R you can give it a shot.
The fact of the matter is, you “think” he’s innocent
As innocent as real estate moguls and citizens in a country buried under a mountain of unjust laws get.... yea.
so I hesitate to say that I know anything quite yet.
If you're looking for a pat on the back, keep looking. I give zero credit for being confident and zero for being doubtful, or self-deprecating, or humble, or proud.
Ultimately all that matters is the logic and the evidence. That's what debate is for. This isn't a negotiation. We're both just wasting time with wit and you can quit anytime you want doesn't bother me.
Oh and by the way, I don’t think the current prison system is moral and I certainly don’t believe that drugs should be illegal to possess or use.
Those two statements are tips of very complicated icebergs, but if you want to talk about those complicated details I might be interested.
Just wanted to appeal to your hatred of drug users
It's not helping that you're admitting to attempted fallacies. If you had ever spent time around someone really addicted to drugs you would find it hard not to hate them too.
I hold three things to be true at the same time:
1.) Using force against people "for their own good" is immoral.
2.) There are drugs that absolutely destroy the life of most people who try them.
3.) There are drugs that absolutely destroy not only the life of most people who try them, but also other people's lives by making them destitute violent desperate unpredictable vagrants.
There are people and attitudes I hate, but "drug users" in general is not one of them. I am at this very moment addicted to the stimulant called caffeine.
which, by the way, Trump most certainly is/was. Businessmen back then weren’t typically angels.
1.) I doubt your sources
2.) I don't care morally or practically what drugs Trump may have experimented with. If he's not on them anymore he's clearly not addicted, and it clearly didn't prevent him from keeping a roof over his head nor did he crash into people with heavy machinery.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The power of the vestigal windows graphics settings will always be MINE to command!
Created:
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -Eleanor Roosevelt
FLRW sentence subject stats (estimated):
1% ideas
3% events twisted by propaganda
26% Donald Trump (a person)
70% Melania Trump (a person)
Created:
-->
@borz_kriffle
If you meant the former, Trump lied in an illegal way.
Oh well if you say so it must be true.
If you meant the latter, do you genuinely believe that he would delay the case this long if he was innocent?
There is more than one trumped up case, and if you're talking about delay tactics from his lawyers I genuinely think lawyers will do whatever they feel will serve their clients interest. When the problem is kangaroo courts convened to disrupt democracy there is every reason to think their position will be much better after there is no election to subvert as a motivation.
He has been stalling and stalling, and I find it hard to believe that he’d do that if he was truly innocent.
I find it impossible to care about what you find hard to believe. Do you plan on making an argument or are you just letting the world know how you feel?
Eventually you’ll get enough proof to change your mind, I hope. Or maybe you’ll die thinking he was innocent,
Don't hold your breath.
I don’t understand cult think.
Missing the forest for the trees.
Finally, why compare prison time to crucifixion?
The point of comparison is more along the lines of the deep need of a tyrannical authority to send a message of fear.
I thought republicans were chill with the prison-industrial complex.
You seem to think a lot of things, but if you don't give reasons what are you doing on this site?
If you can get time for possession, I don’t think it’s fair to let Trump off the hook
Possession of what? Illegal narcotics? Like Hunter Biden has been proven to have possessed?
The lawfare is way way past "unfair", auditing Trump because he's opposing a democrat is unfair. What I have seen has firmly been in "treason against the constitution" territory for months.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
@WyIted
gotcha. So by making up whatever information you want to believe.
This is what making up whatever information you want to believe looks like:
I know he[Trump] praised nazis.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It was more important to defend law and order and democracy.By lining up behind a convicted felon who’s facing indictments in 3 other jurisdictions and where the evidence against him in all three is overwhelming, and where two of those indictments are for his attempts to subvert American democracy…
You have failed in every case to establish and maintain the objective legitimacy of the lawfare against Trump and his supporters.
That is why we had to vote for him and no other. It was in game theory parlance a "forced move". You want to crucify Joe Schmo over lies, we can't let you. If we let you do that then the threat of being railroaded would loom over every candidate, journalist, commenter, and even voter along the way to total digital police state.
You may as well say there was a cult of personality around Rosa Parks. All those people suffering so one woman can sit where she wants on a bus? It's intentional obtuseness. They weren't suffering for the convenience of one woman and we aren't suffering for the ego of one man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You have faith, the same way you 'knew' he refused to condemn them.I know he praised nazis.
I'm not going to respond any further to this.
I'm shocked, how dare you! (greta thunberg voice)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You could have claimed you didn't lie the first time. After I posted the video with the exact timestamp that could no longer be claimed.You lied, you didn't careI didn't lie. I slightly misphrased his evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
the fact that he praises nazi's is the critical part.
That is not a fact. Your error which is not corrected so long as you minimize it is.
How about you phrase it correctly. Here is an example of your statement corrected to be truthful:
Nazi's were rioting. When asked to condemn the nazi's, he would only say "[the neonazis and white supremacists] should be condemned totally. You had many people in that group other than neonazis and white supremacists. The press has treated them absolutely unfairly."
If you can post that, then you will be on the road to recovery.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Then Trump was indicted, and that pretty much ended the primary. It was more important to defend Trump than the party
It was more important to defend law and order and democracy.
We tell you exactly how we think and still you ignore it and project a narrative favorable to hating and dismissing Trump and his supporters. Very cult-like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whs2009
Well that's not a good start...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
they are saying we are destroying the planet.
Zed literally blamed 'lust' for affecting the atmosphere. That's not poetic license that's actually a subconscious belief that explains much of the irrational environmental attitudes.
Human ambition is sinful, sin must cause harm. It's a simple as that (to their subconscious).
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
@Sidewalker
Sidewalker brings up an interesting assertion, at the most extreme end of that line of thought is the hypothesis that the entire perceptible world is an illusion, i.e. you are trapped in the matrix.
An prison of delusion with no mechanism of escape is a dead end concept. What do you do with that idea? Nothing can be done with it.
Thus we can say if there is anything at all to do, it is to escape from delusions. Presume there is an escape, what is the reliable means to find it?
Answer that question and you've solved all propositions of invisible delusional traps of smaller scale. It must also be the correct answer to:
How does one know if one is in a cult?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
do you deny that trump has a cult of personality?
I deny the proposition is susceptible to be proven by repeatably scientific experiment. I'm not going to answer the question if you think one of the answers is like calling the Earth flat.
I feel like that should be obvious that he does
There are over eight billion humans on this planet and each one has the potential to become obsessed with something or someone. In such a context there are no famous people without some irrational and dogmatic worshipers. The inverse is also true, everyone famous has haters.
it seems like out of 333 million people that we have, someone as pathetic as trump wouldn't be where he is with all the other options
Someone as pathetic as Trump? Is that also a "scientific fact"?
Watch these clip:
What do these clips tell you? Think about the full context. What does it mean that he appeared on these programs? What does it means that there was so much clapping?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Video of democrats shipped in Pennsylvania and eelection workers escorting the illegals in front of a 2 hour line to vote.
Saved. Nothing in the video proves or even casts reasonable suspicion of them being illegals, but the guy was a witness to what sounded like giving a fraudulent name.
Cutting the line might be explained if they were only dropping off mail-in-ballots; but that doesn't require interaction with a pollbook worker which is where I assume the conversation about not finding the name would come up.
It is also questionable as to whether democracy can really be said to be served when people are spending huge amounts of money to target people to take to the polls on busses and such. What if they paid them to take the day off?
I support a national holiday for voting, but nothing else should be done to promote voting. If people would rather relax on a day off than vote then they are not the kind of people whose opinions should matter.
As soon as you make it legal to spend money or use influence to make it easier for some people, that will become an avenue for buying an election.
Created: