Total posts: 28,020
-->
@FLRW
I don't judge. You do you.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Maybe you should consider addressing topics instead of personally attacking members of this forum.
Just a suggestion.
Created:
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@oromagi
Shouldn't you deny inappropriately touching your cat?
Reported 2x. This is now repetitious harassment. A separate violation of the COC.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
He isn't a member of this forum. You violated the COC.
Created:
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@FLRW
I bet you inappropriately touch your cat.
Reported for ad hom insults.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
FBI seized Diary evidence of Biden raping his daughter, so that's probably more believable.
FBI hasn't seized anything regarding Ivana to date.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
See: Trump Represents Satan Here on Earth: But the Judgment, this Second Coming Will Remove him and his Followers from the Earth. Rev. 12:9-12. Paperback – December 18, 2019 by Youssef Khalim (Author)
This is yet another instance illustrating the extent to which President Joe Biden's politically influenced Department of Justice is willing to push boundaries in its attempts to undermine his primary political rival, especially during an ongoing presidential election. The central objective of the Biden Administration's actions is a matter of deep concern for all.
The numerous indictments, each piling up against former President Donald Trump, unmistakably appear to serve the purpose of diverting his attention away from his campaign and compelling him to confront a multitude of legal battles. This calculated approach seems designed to exhaust both him and his campaign's resources, leaving them unable to focus on the actual process of campaigning and vying for election victory.
The framers of our nation envisioned a society governed by the rule of law, not the arbitrary actions of individuals. However, the current scenario raises alarming concerns, particularly with regard to the First Amendment. When we consider the combined weight of these various allegations and charges, it paints a picture of a Department of Justice that has become deeply enmeshed in partisan politics. This taint disqualifies it from effectively carrying out the monumental responsibility entrusted to it.
This is evident as the Department of Justice seems to be deploying its power to target political adversaries, specifically Donald Trump and his supporters. Additionally, it is troubling to observe the Department of Justice being instrumentalized to shield members of the Democratic elite, most notably President Joe Biden and, by extension, Hunter Biden. This demonstrates how a politicized Department of Justice is being manipulated to achieve dual objectives that ultimately undermine both the welfare of the American people and the integrity of our nation's democratic foundations.
As we can see, all of these indictments: count after count after count being thrown at former president Donald Trump is clearly an effort to divert his Focus away from the campaign and towards fighting on multiple fronts in these lawsuits; and to completely drain him and his campaign of of resources so they can't focus on on actually campaigning and trying to win this election.
The founders envisioned that our country would be a country of laws not of men; and what we're seeing here most concerning as it relates to the First Amendment. But you take all of these different attacks and indictments in whole what we're seeing is a politicized department of justice that has disqualified itself from being able to fulfill the awesome responsibility that they're entrusted with because they are using it first of all to go after their political opponents, namely Donald Trump and his supporters and also using the Department of Justice to protect the Democrat Elite, namely President Joe Biden and by extension Hunter Biden. So we're seeing how this politicized department of justice is being used to achieve both of those purposes both of which harm the American people's interests the interests of our country and our democracy.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Ask my FBI handler.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”
The Constitution can be changed. It's also a protected Constitutional right to talk about changing the Constitution because the Constitution is not a death pact.
Also, The United States Constitution has been formally amended 27 times. These amendments include the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) and subsequent amendments that address a variety of issues, such as voting rights, the TERMINATON of prohibition law, and the addition of presidential term limits, among others.
Where's the source about elimination?
You didn't fall for a sensational media strawman trap, did you?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
There is no known record of Donald Trump calling for the termination of the United States Constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
But even you admit simply charging him would be enough to have him removed from the political race. Winning the case in court isn't nearly as important.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
tell us when you find something that isn't a conspiracy theory.
Prove to me inflation is a conspiracy theory.
Created:
Posted in:
Why isn’t he being charged with treason?
Well said.
Created:
If there was any truth to this, the FBI would have already covered up the evidence.
Created:
No response from libertarian GP. I wonder why, lol
Race baiting is so 70's. ***yawn***
This article is nearly a year old
So the FBI completely and organically reformed its corruption within a year, on its own, with no external oversight. Nice unicorn.
Created:
Trump caused the inflation with the “biggest tax cut ever”
Nice theory on unicorns. Low taxes cause a surplus of money. Said no economist ever.
Even if that wild theory was true (and it is not), Biden and his Democrat Congress extended all the Trump tax cuts. A steady decline of real wages and a steady transfer of wealth to the upper elites working hand in hand with corrupt politicians in both parties willing to impose an inflation tax on the working class.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I love it when whack job conspiracy theorists talk about reason, and tell us we can't comprehend, it's soooo cute I can hardly stand it.
Like when the left wing wack jobs try to tell us Trump is literally Hitler even as the greatest transfer of wealth is happening due to Covid and Climate mandates long before and after Trump is gone?
Enjoy the decline. Inflation is just a conspiracy theory. Democrats really care about poor people. So cute.
Created:
Or perhaps the FBI used informants to recruit for these groups.
Well said.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's clear the right tribe was not nearly paranoid enough about what the deep state could do to them.
Jan 6 proved that conclusively. If you go up against the deep state, don't go in with selfies and shaman horns.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I still don't get it. Even if they can't prove insurrection in court, wouldn't they at least charge him so he loses the election?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
If they were so sure he intended an insurrection, why did they not charge him with insurrection?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Interesting. Do you think Jan 6 was a similar FBI action?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Any comment to the public?
Created:
“A person reading the crimes of conviction in this case would be left with the impression that the offending defendants were sophisticated international terrorists committed to jihad against the United States,” Judge McMahon wrote. “However, they were, in actual reality, hapless, easily manipulated and penurious petty criminals.”
“The F.B.I. invented the conspiracy; identified the targets; manufactured the ordnance,” Judge McMahon wrote, adding that officials had “federalized” the charges — ensuring long prison sentences — by driving several of the men across state lines into Connecticut to “view the ‘bombs.’”
The F.B.I. had no comment on the decision.
Created:
RFK has spoken to his peoples. Clearly, this is pure evil.
Agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It becomes illegal when he uses the lies he told to advance illegal activity
So why are there no indictments for insurrection?
Created:
Posted in:
If someone does not publicly state that they support Trump, then by definition, they are not publicly supporting Trump. That follows from the definition of "publicly".
You need to re read what I said. This wasn't it.
Do you seriously think Biden's cabinet or Obama's cabinet would be so quiet?
Depends just how hard and corrupt they were jerking each other off instead of serving the people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
So are you. Coincidence? I think not!
Created:
Posted in:
When David Brooks writes about the possibility that "we're the bad guys here," I can understand the sentiment and appreciate the introspection, and I commend him for that. However, there's so much more to this puzzle that he seems to miss. The privileged elite class isolates themselves, enjoying all the benefits and giving themselves whatever they desire. Meanwhile, their media associates act as if they're oppressed, creating YouTube videos advocating for the left and calling for policies like forgiving student debt, while in reality, they are the ones arguing to take from the poor. They claim to be the oppressed, but in truth, they are the bourgeoisie, the merchant class, the intelligentsia. To those intelligentsia advocating for a "revolution," I urge you to study the history of the Soviet Union and what happened to the intelligentsia there, or look into Poland and the fate of the intelligentsia during a revolution, look how Cambodia dealt with intelligent people. When revolution comes calling, you are the first ones to be targeted and put against the wall. So, while Brooks' introspection is commendable, there is a lot more complexity to this situation, and those advocating for radical change should be cautious of the potential and inevitable consequences.
Created:
Posted in:
This NYT article tries to explain why Donald Trump remains popular in the polls despite facing frequent indictments. Brooks explores two different perspectives on Trump's appeal. One perspective comes from anti-Trump individuals who see his supporters as reactionary bigots and authoritarians, while they see themselves as tropes of progressive forces of enlightenment. However, Brooks challenges this view and presents a more reasoned and alternative perspective.
Brooks suggests that the educated elite class, including anti-Trumpers, might actually be the "bad guys" in this story. They argue that this class created a system of meritocracy that favors academic achievement and excludes others. Highly educated parents pass their privileges to their children, leading to a concentration of power among the educated elite. This elite class dominates professions, media, and politics, and they tend to congregate in a few prosperous metro areas.
The elite class regularly supports policies that benefit themselves, like free trade and open immigration, and free tuition, but may negatively impact others. They use language and cultural norms as tools to recognize one another and exclude those who don't conform to their standards. The erosion of social norms, such as discouraging having children outside of marriage, affects less-educated classes more severely. The Brookings study on poverty shows a direct correlation between out of wedlock children and generational poverty.
Brooks doesn't label the elite as "vicious or evil" but points out that they benefit from "oppressive systems." This disconnect between the elite class and the less-educated classes creates a sense of economic, political, and cultural assault, leading many to rally around Trump as their champion against the elite. This is especially true as "rules for thee but not for me" manifests throughout the country.
While Brooks holds the opinion that Trump's indictments are not a political witch hunt, he emphasizes the need for self-reflection and discretion among the elite class. The article ends on this note: The elite class must stop behaving in ways that make Trumpism inevitable and at least attempt to address the grievances of the less-educated classes.
The NYT article presents two perspectives on Trump's popularity: one sees his supporters as bigots and Trump as a monster who deserves punishment, while the other views the elite class as the architects of a system designed to exclude and oppress, leading to a backlash represented by Trump's appeal. Brooks calls for a deeper understanding of the underlying issues to bridge the vast divide between the two groups.
Sociologist E. Digby Baltzell wrote decades ago, “History is a graveyard of classes which have preferred caste privileges to leadership.” That is the destiny the elite class is now flirting with. We can condemn the Trumpian populists all day until the cows come home, but the real question is when will the elites stop behaving in ways that make Trumpism inevitable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Those silly Weimar Germans just needed to know the correct way to deal with political opposition. Clearly Hitler was guilty of obstructing justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I am way too busy slow-clapping to your impressive Godwin skills.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Full approval of course.
“So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yes yes, Godwin is a Repuglican.
Again, well done sir. Hats are off to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Do you keep a copy of Mein Kampf on your nightstand?
lol, zero posts in and you have already invoked your Godwin card.
Well done sir.
Created:
Posted in:
Lets take a look, shall we?
This video is a discussion about the recent indictment involving former President Donald Trump. The indictment accuses him of various crimes related to how he challenged the results of the 2020 election. The indictment, on its face, seems weak and politically motivated, and we should raise questions asking if there's enough evidence to charge AND convict him with serious crimes.
The video claims that the indictment acknowledges Trump's right to speak out about the election and even claim there was fraud, even if those claims were false. It's a basic first amendment right to question the government without fear of retribution or retaliation. He had the right to challenge the election results through legal means like filing lawsuits and seeking recounts or audits. You have to wonder why they're charging him with these felonies if he indeed had the constitutional right to do those things. Something to note is that, as of yet, not one indictment has been presented charging Trump with "insurrection," yet that is the allegation most assigned to him by his detractors.
Many people who protested the election were charged with felonies, even if they didn't engage in violence. Other protesters in different situations were not charged with felonies unless they caused harm through violence. This seeming violation of the exercise of the first amendment is unfair and should raise questions about the way Trump is being treated.
I believe the indictment is questionable, and I feel it's important to have strong evidence before charging someone with serious crimes; especially if that person is in the middle of a democratic election. I think we should consider whether there's a fair basis for the charges and to avoid bastardizing basic legal matters into overly political demagoguery if only to preserve the integrity of fair treatment and a functioning democracy.
What do you guys think?
Created:
Posted in:
See, What each Republican's top donor hotbeds say about their campaigns
ooh more grammar errors. Those Repuglicans will never see it coming!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Are you trying to see if Republican('s) are smart enough to note your grammar errors?
Nice FBI style entrapment. I approve.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
1) If you want to claim that NBC noted a "notable" lack of public support outside of the questionnaire, feel free, quote that study from NBC, and I will look at that evidence.
2) Again, either Not talking to NBC or OTHERWISE not publicly supporting Trump =/= does not support Trump, publicly or privately.
3) If you actually expected all 44 questioned in the article you cited in your OP to say "yes," then there would have conclusively been some serious corruption going on that you apparently approve of as the way things ought to be. The government shouldn't exist to jerk each other off. It is supposed to work for the non-elites, of which Trump has far more support from than any former appointed government servant.
Created:
Mmmm wapo spam. Delish and nutrish.
Created:
Mark Levin is an “expert” where your peon pencil brain is concerned.
Reported for adhom insult.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If I don't like what RFK says, it really doesn't matter who the host is. It won't make a difference to me even if it makes a difference to you. The host isn't the source of info for me. RFK is.
Like I posted before, Breakfast club is pure trash, but it's worth ignoring the hosts if I can hear what Vivek says.
Created:
Posted in:
reporting a notable lack of public support for Trump
No, they were not. Your statement you quoted from NBC clearly says they were reporting on the results of a question they asked. Everything else you are describing is fanfiction.
If you want to claim NBC noted a lack of public support outside of the questionnaire, feel free, quote that study from NBC, and I will look at that evidence. Otherwise, please keep the fanfiction for a different forum.
Created:
Here is a highly liked comment posted to that Breakfast club interview.
"Thank you Breakfast Club! Vivek Ramaswamy is now a candidate who interests me because of how well he conducted himself on this show. The blatant hostility and disrespect that was demonstrated by all of you would have been distracting to most people, and would have elicited an angry reaction. But Vivek Ramaswamy remained personable, focused, articulate, and factual in the face of your high-level unprofessionalism. I like the guy. Thanks so much for putting him on my radar!"
Some people really do want to see what a candidate says and they do not care about the propaganda of the host. What the host cares about doesn't matter to what the general public cares about, especially when they are learning about a new candidate.
Others have no listening skills, and need to be spoonfed what to think, relying on the host to screen information for them since they are unable or unwilling to do it for themselves.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I also think the Breakfast club is infested with racists and grifters, but I still watched it to hear what Vivek had to say.
It's kind of funny that the video got 50k dislikes due to the host's ridiculous behavior during the interview. But that's where you have to go since corporate media heavily censors challengers.
Created: