Total posts: 3,014
As you know, most of the cheating happened in the cities where all the blacks live.
Democrats are experts at speaking for blacks who weren't consulted, see the 2/3 clause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, she signed a document saying she would not defame Trump, took the money, then defamed Trump anyway.
Yeapppp....
In TDS world though that means he raped her and denying it is defamation.
"Law and Order"
"Precedent"
The only question in my mind is whether Stormy is doing it out of spite, money, or threats. Clearly money motivates her to tell lies.
Created:
Posted in:
You're going to get indoctrinated, you're going to pay for it, and you're going to like it.
Created:
Posted in:
"They invented the electoral college to guard against stupid voters"
"our democracy" != democracy
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Apparently they care about due process, proving them more trustworthy than Hamas who has arrested no one for all the raping and murdering.apparently the west bank police do what the israeli defense minister tells them to do
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Others say that stopping promised aid is an impeachable offense, but I guess that's only when the quid pro quo demand is unpalatable to the left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well she's ideal material for a kangaroo court jury, also send her 52 mail ballots please.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
no point in waiting for the authorities to you know, investigate and make arrests or anything
Obviously there is a point but that is an ideal of civilization that can't always be lived up to. You can wait around forever but the cops in Pakistan aren't going to arrest Osama Bin Laden for example.
If the PA could be trusted to stop these kinds of murders there wouldn't be so many of them and they wouldn't feel the need to take matters into their own hands.
When the IDF gets involved people you listen to call it "occupation". Can't have it both ways.
That is not what I said. I said that the only reason the IDF would give is that they're guilty or planning to be guilty (which is another kind of guilty)There is only one reason the IDF would give for bombing someone, that is that they are a real and present threat. Clearly they are not suffering from general paranoia.this is the most delusional statement i've read all yearthey're guilty BECAUSE they're being bombed
I am not saying I know that everyone Israel kills is guilty, I am saying you don't know that they're not anymore than I do.
All we have is broad cultural and historical records because specifics can't be confirmed through the haze of information warfare. That wide view tells me Israel has the moral high ground and also that they are more trustworthy when they say they have good reason to do what they do.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It is analogous to murder convictions where a body can never, or wasn't ever found.If there are thousands of such convictions, it's entirely plausible the courts could similarly convict someone of voter fraud.
but how many murders are punished vs how many voter fraudsters?
Even if they were looking it's much easier to get away with voter fraud because there is no body to hide. Basically it's just confession, now that could be from bragging to friends or on a text app that can be used as evidence; but an intelligent careful fraudster really has nothing to fear.
Murdering someone and disposing of the body is much much more complicated so we can expect that the number of missing persons that were actually murdered but we have no proof or conviction is of limited scope.
Yes you could convict someone of voter fraud with circumstantial evidence, but there isn't much of that either.
I'm sure if you look at those convictions without a body, there was evidence of unique motivation, unique opportunity, and steps to hide the body.
With voter fraud, pretty much anyone who knows how the system works and who has a computer has the opportunity. There are millions of TDS who have the motivation. There is little to no evidence that needs to be hidden.
Therefore we can expect that even if there was honest investigation, the number of convicted cases of fraud would be a tiny proportion of the actual amount of fraud.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The incident was part of a rampage by Israeli settlers that, according to local officials, killed four Palestinians over four days.
How many Jews were killed before this?
The violence was triggered by the disappearance of 14-year-old Binyamin Ahimeir, who went missing on Friday after leaving his settler outpost to herd sheep near the Palestinian village of Mughayir, in the Ramallah area.His body was found a day later, and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said he had been killed in a "terrorist attack".
Ah, there we go. Murdering children... again.
ok, soinstead of waiting for the cops to investigate and make an arrestthey just start attacking their neighborsseems extremely reasonable and civilized
Wait till you hear about George Floyd
where are you hearing about "kill squads" in the west bank ?
There is only one reason the IDF would give for bombing someone, that is that they are a real and present threat. Clearly they are not suffering from general paranoia.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, they beg the question under the false premise that they already know fraud didn't happen because they haven't been buried under a mountain absolute proof already.
Again, it's not analogous to murder because it doesn't leave dead bodies (evidence that must be actively hidden); but if it were forced into that shape it would be like they are refusing to investigate missing persons reports because they already know the person is fine because they can't have been murdered because there is no body.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody sensible is claiming there aren't combatants in the west bank either. Israel has nothing to gain by bombing true civilians.if they're not interested in territoryit's probably just good old-fashioned racism
Isn't the simplest explanation that they're reacting to the assembly of kill squads?
You don't need to assume some form of insanity since a bunch of kill squads is exactly what attacked them on October 7th. You also don't need to explain why this supposed rampant racial hatred that doesn't manifest against arabs within firm Israeli territory (where the arabs that are content with the Israeli state live).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
They had all that territory. They controlled down to the Suez. They gave it up in the hope of peace.ok, i guess that means they can kill anybody they wish
No, it means the motivation you asserted is more or less debunked.
People looking for territory don't give it up when they've fought for it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody sensible is claiming there aren't combatants in the west bank either. Israel has nothing to gain by bombing true civilians.they obviously gain territory
They had all that territory. They controlled down to the Suez. They gave it up in the hope of peace.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Democrats cannot find the body, so they cannot start a murder investigation.
IWRA's stubbornness on this analogy is telling, but it's really bugging me that no one is acknowledging something pretty fundamental:
Mail fraud doesn't leave bodies. You murder someone, there is a body; then you have to work to cover the body up.
They don't have to do any work to cover up mail fraud, the mail is untraceable.
The process that would be required to make remote voting democratic is a process that would cause fraud to leave "bodies", aka evidence, aka auditability.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I will answer the question though: "from the river to the sea" would not be evil if it was Israel because Israel doesn't exterminate muslims or arabs. Hamas does exterminate jews.netanyahu and other members of the government have said repeatedly they will not stop bombing until every member of hamas is deadhow do you think they know who is a "member of hamas"do they all wear uniforms ?do they carry a special id card ?can you perhaps x-ray their skulls to find little flags in their brains ?
The problem you highlight is well known. This is why uniforms existed in the first place and why the Geneva convention distinguishes between uniformed and nonuniform combatants.
This is also called guerilla warfare.
I see it as no different than using nuclear or biological weapons or strategic bombing (in quality not quantity). It gives you a strong advantage but it costs more innocent lives.
The jihadists are choosing to use that weapon, and the cost is civilians on their side. This is not Israel's fault, and all those civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't the US military's fault either.
These jihadists don't think they can win with uniforms (they probably couldn't) and they are sure they are justified so they don't care if civilians die because of it.
they're bombing the west bankand nobody is claiming "hamas" is in the west bank
Nobody sensible is claiming there aren't combatants in the west bank either. Israel has nothing to gain by bombing true civilians.
in fact, the palestinian authority and hamas are mortal enemies and have literally killed hundreds on each side
That will make for a fun time after all the jews are dead or expelled.
It was Hezbollah BTWlet's tackle hamas first
Let's not pretend Hamas is any better.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you know the difference between this clip and the one I posted? The one I posted was referencing a quote from an actual military leader.palestine does not have a military
Uh huh, just civilians with long range rocket artillery.
It was Hezbollah BTW
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't know Hebrew, but I do know English; and some people are making themselves abundantly clear:how is "from the river to the sea" somehow evil when one person says it, but not when another person says it ?
That clip did not contain that phrase. Did you watch it?
I will answer the question though: "from the river to the sea" would not be evil if it was Israel because Israel doesn't exterminate muslims or arabs. Hamas does exterminate jews.
So, the whole area being under Hamas control means all the jews were killed or exiled. The inverse is not true.
Do you know the difference between this clip and the one I posted? The one I posted was referencing a quote from an actual military leader.
Created:
lol IWRA can't even convince Zed it is relevant.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@cristo71
[ADOL] and I won't believe it just because clearly delusional people say it.[3RU7AL] try watching a few israeli news broadcaststhey're bragging about it
[cristo71] I have come to the conclusion that they dream of living in a world devoid of Jews and a Jewish homeland— even if it means the destruction of their own earthly lives and the lives of their children, sadly.[3RU7AL] what are you trying to say here ?
I don't know Hebrew, but I do know English; and some people are making themselves abundantly clear:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
because you can find a 1% overlap in the Venn diagram of illegality
Illegality cannot accurately be charted on a Venn diagram.
There are statutes with definitions of crime. When you choose an interpretation you have to stick with it. If you don't, that's lawfare. That's your whim ruling, not the law.
then wonder why they're being treated differently.
Oh I know why they're treated differently, and it is intolerable. I don't ask you for an explanation for different treatment, I asked you to explain why your interpretations don't apply to others and you have consistently failed.
If I was doing 71 in a 70 zone, I'm speeding, but I probably won't get pulled over. If I'm doing 138, I'll be lucky if I don't get arrested. And if I don't, they'll dish out a ticket for every violation they can find; seat belt, window tints, failure to signal, etc...And then you'll come along claiming this is lawfare because both were speeding without a seat belt but only one got a ticket.
It's actually a good analogy, because this is a perfect example of low level lawfare.
Building codes, zoning rules, county bylaws are another.
and if Trump was fined 500 million dollars for speeding, it would still be lawfare.
You find unequal application to be acceptable to go after troublemakers (in your view). Your view is unethical, and where the examples above are a pervasive but low density injustice, when used to control the federal government it becomes civil-war-triggering.
To the Jim Crow southern sheriff being black was enough proof of being a troublemaker. That was the context they needed to pull over a black guy. People who believe in the fallacy you just expressed tie themselves in endless loops "oh discretion is good, but not for the wrong reasons..." bla bla bla, you're wrong; and it shows in the injustice your theory manifests.
the enforcement of the law will always require human discretion.
Discretion exists to the degree of imperfection in the law. The greatest discretion is absolute dictatorship.
If men could be trusted to choose justice on their own discretion, we wouldn't need laws.
That, by definition
You asserting that something has never been perfect is not a definition.
There has always been rape and murder, but human society does not by definition require it and we should do our very best to eliminate it from our society.
This is where your arguments fall completely off the intellectual cliff.
Oh, no I don't think that's whats happening here.
No regard for how one situation was different from another
Just enough regard to distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant.
no regard for what those laws were written to protect against in the first place.
You mean like noting that all classification authority flows from POTUS and if he isn't authorized then no one is?
It's not a serious point of view, it's the weaponization of every technicality you can find to advance your political agenda, which is to burn it all to the ground because it isn't working for you the way you think you're entitled to.
Confession by projection, every word.
We're talking about this only because of its political implications
The law is being twisted because of the political implications. The letter of the law is the proof of the twisting.
so to pretend that "worse" is irrelevant to this conversation is fundamentally dishonest and frankly stupid.
It's irrelevant to the law, and when you think your idea of worse justifies unequal and novel (without precedent) application of law that just so happens to pile onto one political candidate you all but admit that the law is nothing more than a conduit for your political goals.
Politics is war by other means. When law is a weapon in politics, that is a good definition of "lawfare" and mutually exclusive with "rule of law".
Worse does in fact matter In every sense because determining what's worse and treating it as if it was worse is the entire point of why we have laws and why we have a political system in the first place. It's why you are purporting to be so upset about what's going on right now.
The voting booth is where you may decide that Donald J Trump is worse than others. Trying to squeeze a bill of attainder out of laws which under the constitution may not apply to only one man is seditious abuse of the law and the constitution.
Unequal application of laws is unconstitutional, and laws that are twisted to apply to one man (and his agents) is the most unequal form of unequal application.
You and those like you taking a big smelly dump on the social contract and rule of law is worse than Donald Trump asking whether Biden is corrupt and buying big macs for another four years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think he has 3 alternate accounts for the likes because what kind of simpleton would think he made a point by responding 11 minutes after the so called "unemployed" person?Why do unemployed people care if others are as well? Misery loves company I guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Then they should put it in the charges... oh wait, they can't, no jurisdiction.
Not a charging document.
Excited? No I was just explaining to you why your cartoonishly ridiculous hypothetical would never happen in real life.
It's happening right now. You just like the results, at least the ones you foresee.
Cohen wasn't running for president, but you seem to think if Trump told Cohen to pay Stormy that counts.He didn't just tell him.
It doesn't matter. If hush money is a campaign expenditure then it must be recorded and transparent. You cannot escape the fact that your interpretation makes hundreds of other people guilty and is a break with all precedent.
Unequal application and lack of precedent are the hallmarks of lawfare (or the end of rule of law).
Why quote me of you're not going to respond to a word I just said?
You said nothing of relevance. The overlap was clear and obvious. Falsification is not required under your absurd legal theories.
You're conflating two different things and as usual
I'm categorizing your fallacies by common properties. Within the list of traditionally named fallacies they are red herrings. You refuse to accept the implications of your asserted legal interpretations because you think some other charge or detail (often false but that's besides the point) creates "context" that renders your interpretation moot.
Red herrings are fallacies of relevance and that is your repeated fallacy in comparing lawfare to rule of law.
The overview here is where we step back and recognize as thinking human beings that lying to the FBI in order to hold onto classified documents is worse than realizing you have them and immediately returning them.
Irrelevant to the claim that retaining once classified documents willfully after having been POTUS (or near presidential power) and having been authorized to possess the information violates the law.
Your "worse" is the red herring. What you think of as "worse" has nothing to do with the implications of your interpretation of the law in question.
"Willful retention is not accidental, negligent, or reckless. Rather, a defendant only retains NDI willfully if he or she knows he or she possesses it and knows that such possession is prohibited due to the nature of the information."
This is the opinion of one person, not precedent or citation of law. It gives the impression the quote you transmitted is from a court ruling, but that text is not found in United States v. Hitselberger, 991 F. Supp.2d 101, 106-07 (D. D.C. 2013).
Maybe you should send it to Hur, because he said Biden willfully retained documents.
So when you are lying to the FBI about the documents you possess, you are almost by definition guilty of willful retention. That describes Trump. It does not describe Biden.
It describes neither because both thought the possession was not prohibited. That doesn't change just because the FBI starts asking questions.
here. You ABSURDLY claim "legal expenses" is a false label, but that does not in any way or in the slightest degree change the fact that you are also claiming hush money (compensated NDAs) is a campaign finance violation.The $130k you paid to a porn star to keep her quiet is not a legal expense. That's a fact.
When it's a legal agreement negotiated by a lawyer and paid through a lawyer it is. That is a fact.
Nearly every law firm pays court, filing, records, and service fees on behalf of a client. It is not falsifying business records to record only one payment to the lawfirm just because the law firm doesn't use the entire payment for salary.
Paying to keep a story out of the public for the purpose of winning election sure sounds to me like a campaign expenditure. Not a lawyer here, but I fail to see how it is not.
and suspending anyone's account for mentioning a story for the purpose of winning an election sure sounds like campaign activity to me. So I guess that makes facebook and the FBI's budget "campaign expenditures".
You have no capability of self-correction. What you should be doing is looking at absurd conclusions and saying "there is an error in one of the premises", in this case your premise that "anything that I can construe as helping a political campaign is campaign activity".
As I've said about 3 or 4 times already, I really have no interest in the legal minutiae of this case
Like 3RU7AL said, you want it both ways.
If you could stay on subject without gish galloping around with red herrings we would be talking only about the constitution and what the impeachments clause implies.
You can't, because in your mind (as it appears) you have no clearly defined chains of inference.
You (seemingly) can't help but argue "orangeman bad therefore immunity (from prosecution by anyone with a hammer) must be fake". "He did it for the money" or "entirely for personal gain"
The juicy goal of destroying Donald Trump is like a tumor in your thinking that draws all thoughts towards it. All arguments exist only in relation to getting Trump. All these pseudocases against Trump serve to prove is that the founders were wise to remove federal officers (and office holders) from the whims of easily corrupted local courts.
The fact that the founders limited jurisdiction to congress is contained solely in the text and history of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are the soundtracks for post liberal dystopias so fun?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fewer buyers mean lower prices, might actually crash the market and I'm ready and waiting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
the schwarzenegger case is an example of a tabloid paying for a story in the middle of a political campaign with the intent to kill the storyAnd tabloids are free to do that all they want. Tabloids aren't running for president and therefore aren't subject to campaign finance laws.
Cohen wasn't running for president, but you seem to think if Trump told Cohen to pay Stormy that counts.
Now, why would a tabloid kill a story? Out of the goodness of their heart? They just hate the defamation that much?
When you can explain the overlap been the Schwarzenegger campaign's involvement and falsification of business records with Trump's then you might have a case of a legal double standard, assuming California's laws are the same.
It's all about the context you see. The portents were very different in California at that time.
Someone saw an eagle high in the sky. The chicken bones were laid out quite uniquely.
Always the same tired, failed, illogical, pathetic, defeated, and utterly debunked tricks with you isn't it. "False equivalence because the exact order of fake offenses isn't the same"
If you were honest you would admit it's the implications of your 'interpretations' that mattered. If they were true, there would be a crime. You can't just drag in random bits of information and change that.
"Oh did Biden lie to the FBI", doesn't matter does it. The law you claim Trump broke doesn't say "willfully retain documents while lying to the FBI"
Same thing here. You ABSURDLY claim "legal expenses" is a false label, but that does not in any way or in the slightest degree change the fact that you are also claiming hush money (compensated NDAs) is a campaign finance violation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You keep alluding to this campaign finance violation that was "never charged". You do know that is one of the central elements on trial right now... Right?
Then they should put it in the charges... oh wait, they can't, no jurisdiction.
Remember when you were all excited about jurisdiction stopping abuses? Nope, not when there is lawfare to wage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also: ignore the 2 signed documents where she asserted nothing happened.
Well if you didn't ignore it then she would have defrauded the American voter by lying. Either she's lying now or she lied then.
Off to the gulag with her!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
and RFK can beat trumpthen NOBODY will vote for biden
Then RFK should have been in the republican primary. That was where he could force people to choose between him and Trump.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
but he doesn't win in a three way and you can't get Biden out of the way because the deep state wants his compliant decaying brain right where it is.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hopefully the judge will do the right thing here and put Trump and all the news agencies in jail for violating gag orders.
Yep, classic slippery slope.
First it's "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater", just took a while before they decided unsanctioned narratives was pretty much the same thing as "fire" and the population of the nation was just like a "theater".
Just a continuation of "You calling your accuser a liar? DEFAMATION!"
Psuedojudges guided by the ever perfect advise of the "intelligence community" and "trusted news sources" will now be doing the thinking for you citizen; move along.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Now imagine that nobody was indicted for burglary but you're still getting charged with a felony as an accessory.Sounds pretty messed up. Do you have a point?
Yea. There is no real court case against Trump in New York because the analog of the burglary was a vaguely alluded to campaign finance violation that was never charged much less convicted.
This means there is no genuine court standing in judgement of Trump and you are a hack with no principles.
The constitution protects the federal government from fake courts in insane pockets of seditious zealots via the impeachments clause, but because you are a hack you don't acknowledge that too. You are just crossing your fingers and hoping the right-tribe zealots don't have the gumption to follow suite, but it's a bad bet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
so, NOT specifically paid with campaign money
No, that's still not the same issue.
There is campaign spending (in theory) and there is campaign money.
Campaign money comes from registered and monitored escrow accounts. When you donate to a campaign the money goes into those accounts. There are all sorts of limits about who can give how much when. I think typically a candidate is allowed to spend as much of their personal money on a campaign as they want BUT they still need to route it through a registered account due to election laws requiring transparency.
Spending money on a campaign with any money regardless of whether it was personal or a donation when you don't disclose it would be a violation of the law (or FEC policy hard to keep track of the difference these days).
They are claiming that hush money is a campaign expenditure therefore it should have been paid out through the campaign account(s) and failure to do so is illegal shadow campaigning. If Trump had paid Cohen from the campaign account, then you could say it was "campaign money", then you could say "people donated to silence Stormy Daniels". That did not happen.
These laws are reminiscent of zoning laws in that nobody really knows what they mean and you can use them to go after anyone.
They have been twisted to attack right-tribers before, see Dinesh D'Souza.
In the case of these Cohen payments though, it is beyond all pale. A payment from a personal account to a lawyer labeled as "legal expenses" has now been declared to be "campaign spending" without any input from the FEC or anyone involved.
Basically if you went out to buy an apple, they'll claim you're trying to illegally hide campaign spending because if you don't eat you'll look unhealthy on camera and that might hurt your chances. If you said "I would have bought that apple anyway" they're saying "No you would buy something unhealthy like a snickers bar, our jury will decide these matters".
Sane people know campaign spending is when you spend money on advertisements, leaflets, mailers, campaign events. It does not include anything else that could possibly be explicable without a campaign. The Politico article you reference is stretching until you can see through it to even describe it so loosely.
As you pointed out, if non-disclosure agreements WHICH HAPPEN ALL THE TIME were always campaign spending then what about arnold schwarzenegger and the countless other examples of paid non-disclosure?
Why is it that seeking to negotiate and execute non-disclosure agreements is listed on the portfolios of thousands of lawyers? I have a theory: It's a legal practice, which means paying for it is a legal expense.
HILARIOUSLY they can't even prove Trump wanted to pay Daniels to be quiet even though he has ABSOLUTELY EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT and TO LABEL IT "LEGAL EXPENSES"
How many hoops was that?
1.) Redefine "defrauding the voter" to include what Facebook did to the New York Post
2.) Redefine campaign spending to include pervasive legal negotiations that had never been held to be campaign spending before
3.) Ignore the fact that the underlying "crime" was never charged
4.) Redefine paying a lawyer for legal services as "anything but legal expenses"
5.) Rely only on the word of a convicted and admitted liar to establish an intent to seek a non-disclosure agreement
6.) Bring Stormy on to talk about fictional sex where she felt drugged and powerless when it's totally irreverent to the already (see 1-5) totally insane case
7.) Judge fails to recuse himself even though daughter is raising millions on getting Trump
That's seven fucking bananas on the famous Dershowitz "banana republic" scale.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's also never been considered "campaign spending" regulated by the FEC. It still is not, but pseudo-courts are content to pretend.using campaign funds and falsifying records is a MISDEMEANOR
No, it was not campaign funds. The insane claim is that since they can imagine that he didn't want sex scandals to harm his chances of election ANY payment regarding non-disclosure settlements is campaign spending.
falsifying records
There is no falsifying records. Paying a lawyer means "legal fees" is substantially true.
and if they left it at that i'm sure trump would be more than happy to pay the fine
I wouldn't be happy with that. What happens when they start stealing huge amounts of money from candidates who aren't ultra rich?
It is morally and practically unacceptable to make up crimes regardless of how light the punishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this is not a crimethis has never been a crime
It's also never been considered "campaign spending" regulated by the FEC. It still is not, but pseudo-courts are content to pretend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Suspending a news outlet and anyone who quotes that outlet is quintessential suppression.Wow, I didn't know that refusing to comment on a story = suppressing that story.
So why aren't you going after Trump for suppressing the laptop story?
He didn't suppress it and it's your absurd legal theory not mine.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
youtube is trying to convince me that israel is 100% "justified"
Youtube is trying to convince me that Israel indiscriminately bombing civilians but that is an extraordinary claim given the context and history and I won't believe it just because clearly delusional people say it.
By clearly delusional I mean the "queers for Palestine" type. They want to kill anyone who for any reason describes themselves as queer. They've been asked and that is what they answer.
The ARI is correct about the big picture. Israel is a child of "western" civilization which means liberal civilization which walks the path laid out by Socrates, Aristotle, etc... etc.. all the way to John Locke and Voltaire.
What people call "palestininans" (but which are in fact reactionary Muslims of the region with no special ethnic or cultural distinction) are dark age theocrats with a nasty streak of cruelty.
That doesn't mean Israel is flawless or there aren't innocent people in Gaza and the west bank, but it does mean that when Israel offers a two state solution and Hamas slaps it down because they want to kill any Jews that look at them funny, I have no conflicted feelings because they are the architects of their own suffering. Gaza chose Hamas like Germany chose Hitler. Politics have consequences and those consequences are not fair to individuals.
Something tells me they aren't launching rocks, rockets, or going on raids to rape and kill as many Jews as they can.something tells me they're still getting their homes confiscated and their water storage sabotaged and being imprisoned and shot regardless
I'll believe it when I see it. Too many people willing to lie.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Something tells me they aren't launching rocks, rockets, or going on raids to rape and kill as many Jews as they can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If I walk into a sporting goods store and purchase two ski masks and two hunting rifles, I have done nothing illegal. But if my intent when making that purchase was to give it to my two friends so they could rob a bank, I am now an accessory to burglary.
Now imagine that nobody was indicted for burglary but you're still getting charged with a felony as an accessory.
Your "rule of law" is not my rule of law.
Your "democracy" is not my democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
do you think that burying the hunter biden laptop story also "defrauded voters" ?No one buried the story
[Double_R] The act of concealing pertinent information from someone before they make a decision is fraud, by definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Don't look now, but IWRA has a theory about a conspiracy!
Do you know what a person who has theories about conspiracies is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The legal theory here is complicated and ambiguous. What's not is the fact that this whole thing was clearly wrong....Whether lawmakers in NY had the imagination to cover this in their crafting of the law is just pure distraction.
You don't care that they are trying to imprison a man for an invented felony because you're just so sure it's wrong.
It's pure distraction to point out there is no broken law...
So uh.... you're the "rule of law" guy here? You're the one whose mind remains untwisted by cult-thinking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Demanding an audit and then pointing out that you only need to find one more than the purported margin to change the outcome is.Yep, nothing illegal about demanding audits.Correct, there is not. Unfortunately for your delusion, calling up the secretary of state and telling him to "find" one more vote than you lost by is not "demanding an audit".
Not a very effective tactic if there was no credible fear he could carry through.The effectiveness of the tactic is irrelevant to whether it is illegal.
It's illegal to point out things that are illegal? I'd say that's a novel theory but we're rewriting history to get Trump so you'd just ignore it.
The person who recorded it was not in Georgia. Google it.Sure."While there were rumors about a possible lawsuit against Raffensperger for recording the conversation without Trump's consent, the telephone call recording laws for both locations where this conversation was held, namely the state of Georgia and District of Columbia, only require "one-party consent", meaning any participant of a phone call can legally record it without another party's consent.[56][57][58]"
Google harder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The only way for that to be true is for certain Xq28 variants to not cause homosexuality, if they all did and all males had it then there would be no way to correlate.
It then follows that there should be a population without the "gay gene".
Where are these populations?
Suppose people start aborting children with the gene?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
you don't know anything if you choose not to look.That's called an audit,
Yep, nothing illegal about demanding audits.
It is illegal, read the lawYour claim, your homework.The prosecutors already did it when they filled the indictment. Read it.
I'll remind you that you dropped the point if you rely on it again.
There is no process for challenging election results. People have just used civil suits in lieu of congressional debate and it is an ill fitting mechanism indeed.Civil suits is the process.
It is a process that has been used. It is not the process. The process is for congress to reject electors.
So he can wield it even if it's not his to wield?It's called lying and intimidating. Not a difficult thing to understand, if you were actually trying to.
Not a very effective tactic if there was no credible fear he could carry through.
CNN didn't tell them what to do
If there was any communication it would be them telling CNN what to do.
Second and more importantly, they didn't say it was Russian disinformation, they said it has all of the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Those are two completely different things.
So do you have a straight face when you type these things?
The funniest part was the call was illegally recorded. "this is the way the law works" rofl... clownAs usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. The recording was legal, Georgia is a one party consent state. Google it.
The person who recorded it was not in Georgia. Google it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
have they even done any surveys to determine if this stormy daniels thing would have made any difference whatsoever ?
Doesn't matter if it would make a difference. Congress and the FBI would not survive a "legal interpretation" which claims that any attempt to hide information from the public is defrauding the American voter. (also there is no immunity so all these people can be guilty even if their job is to keep secrets).
They called releasing Clinton's emails "election interference" even though there hasn't any credible shadow of doubt cast on their authenticity.
It all boils down to "How dare people who I claim but can't prove were Russian release accurate information at an inconvenient time!"
They stopped that from happening again with the Hunter Biden laptop story, and polls have been conducted on that which showed it would have changed the outcome.
So if paying someone to hide information (which Trump maintains was not information but a lie) is "defrauding the American voter" and releasing information is "election interference" then the only way to avoid destroying American democracy is to know nothing.
The real pattern is simple: Any act which causes people to be less likely to vote for corrupt war mongers is a "threat to our democracy"
I say unrepentant liars, state secrets, and 'elections' that can't be audited are the real threats to our democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, illegally cast or counted; and you don't know anything if you choose not to look.Oh, so you can't look for 11,000 fraudulently tallied votes for Biden if your name starts with a T?You have to demonstrate that there are fraudulently cast ballots before having a reason to look for them genius.
Go on….You go on, you're asserting it's illegal, but all you've said is "pressuring". It's all pressuring to change the outcome by changing the procedure.It is illegal, read the law
Your claim, your homework.
Here, let’s try this: Do you think there is a reason why there is a process for challenging election results written into the law that involves a court of law with legal filings, an established burden of truth, legal representation on both sides, and a judge, but what is not written into that law is the right to just call the person in charge of elections and telling them how many votes you need then to go out and "find"?
There is no process for challenging election results. People have just used civil suits in lieu of congressional debate and it is an ill fitting mechanism indeed.
It wasn’t Trump’s to wield genius.Then there was no threat *grins with halo hovering*If it wasn't Trump's to wield that's part of what makes it so egregious.
So he can wield it even if it's not his to wield?
Everyone knows that Trump had many more ways to go after people, like his Twitter account that every republican is terrified of.
Super scary, people might listen to him.... you know... like they might listen to CNN... or all those "intelligence" officials that all signed a letter that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation when it was in fact NOT.
They might listen to Biden when he lies about what Trump said at Charlottesville.
They might listen to Adam Schiff when he assured the nation there was secret damning evidence.
They might listen to Alvin Bragg who doesn't care what crime is being obscured or whether a guilty verdict was ever reached.
Yes speech can be very dangerous.
The fact that he recorded the call itself demonstrates this, he knew Trump was going to attack him if he said no, this is why the law works the way it does.
The funniest part was the call was illegally recorded. "this is the way the law works" rofl... clown
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
For more than a decade, when analysts described the strategy utilized by Israel against Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, they’ve used a metaphor: With their displays of overwhelming military strength, Israeli forces were “mowing the grass.”
By which they mean airstrikes against rocket artillery launching or assembly sites.
If airstrikes are "going in" then Hamas has "gone into" Israel quite a few times.
I meant IDF soldiers did not go into Gaza for a long period.
The phrase implies the Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip and their supply of crude but effective homemade weapons are like weeds that need to be cut back.Such tactics have faced significant criticism from international human rights groups
I didn't know the 2nd amendment had an international following.
often due to the disproportionate number of deaths caused by Israeli forces, compared to those caused by Palestinian militants during conflict.
and all the people who died on Jan 6 were protestors. No international groups I know have complained about "disproportionate death".
How irrational Israel is, don't they know they need to equalize the kill/death ratio for the insane sensibilities of people who don't have to worry about being murdered by people who hate your guts?
the long-term benefits of the “mow the grass” strategy have come under question.
Sane question: How long are you going to keep doing this before you say "this is ridiculous" and just annex the region and deport all the crazys to countries that actually have something to lose if they bombed Isreal."
Insane question: Why don't you just let them shoot rockets? Isn't it fun to guess where they land? It creates a whole new insurance industry. Also if they occasionally break into your borders with heavy machinery and start raping people and murdering babies what's the big deal?
Dec 15, 2023 — 20, Israeli forces had arrested as many as 880 Palestinian children this year, a practice made possible under Israel's draconian military laws.
Caption under photo "A Palestinian youth is arrested by Israeli soldiers for throwing stones during a protest on October 23, 2010."
PERHAPS THEY "DREAM OF LIBERTY"
No, they dream of stoning infidels and homosexuals. If they dreamed of liberty they wouldn't throw stones as Israel which does not tax them. They would form a liberal state as has been offered many times.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If tradition was the root value of all objective moral frameworks, yes.You actually think that liberalism is some objective moral framework? I mean, seriously, this one would even make liberals laugh.
If they laugh at the idea that liberty is an objective value, were they really liberals?
Death before enslavement is my versionOh great, you even have your own version. What are you? Liberal samurai?
Sure, whatever floats your boat. "New Hampshire, the state of liberal samurai"
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They did not go into Gaza for yearsAnd you know this because you were there for all those years to observe all the soldiers near the wall?
No I just thought I would take the claims of one side at face value. You know how it is.
but all that achieves is even more wars and killings.
What happened to death before dishonor?
Death before enslavement is my version.
By your logic, just reverse, because Israel is less traditional, Palestine is justified in invading it?
If tradition was the root value of all objective moral frameworks, yes.
By your logic, every society is justified in invading other societies to impose their own values on other societies?
Not every society is more liberal than others. Also you need to ask nicely first, just to make sure they want to die for the sake of oppression.
I must say there is no much sense to your words and you are obviously a liberal imperialist, which is about as funny as it gets.
What are you pretending to not be a troll now? Sorry, clowns don't get to clutch pearls without it looking hilarious.
Well it's pretty hard to justify beating actual children. Post the videosIs it really that hard to google "israeli soldiers beating children"?
It's apparently harder than you typing that.
Created: