Total posts: 4,222
-->
@Mall
If there was proof of raping somebody,that person would be prosecuted.
if there wasn't proof, he wouldn't have been found civilly liable, but he was. A jury of his peers determined he did sexually assault her. And the judge confirmed that the actions they confirmed he committed met the normal definition of rape.
Has she ever said she hates him?
no. But she wouldn't. She knows that her well being and that of her son are tied to trump. She has to keep up a brave face in public. But she spends almost no time with him any more that anyone can tell and very rarely goes to any public events with him any more. I think she probably disliked him before the 2016 campaign. But by 2017 she was already looking for the door.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Why isn't he in prison if he's this supposed rapist?
the rape happened too long ago. But a jury of his peers determined he raped E jean carrol. That is a legal fact. Anyone and everyone can publicly call him a rapist and trump cannot sue over it.
They can't get any proof on the greatest right.
i'm not sure what you mean.
Created:
-->
@Mall
So this is why you personally think she hates him.
yes. He cheats on her. He makes her do things she doesn't want to do. He is a malignant narcissist. he's a rapist. And she seems to avoid him both in public and in private (they have separate bedrooms)
Created:
Posted in:
I'm done repeating myself.
thank god. There's only so many times someone should repeat something that their own linked case disproves. It's embarrassing.
The historical record of the legislative history behind the creation and passage of the 14th Amendment, Citizenship Clause, if fucking crystal clear.
lol you literally linked the case that proves you are wrong. There is over 100 years of precedence showing that anyone born in america who doesn't fall into very specific categories automatically gets citizenship. Do you think these millions of american citizens just managed to trick everyone for the last 100 years?
Kamala Harris is NOT a legitimate citizen. Period.
lol, no one with any legitimacy actually questions that. It's just a racist dog whistle. She's black, therefore she must be a foreigner.
Done with your vain ignorance.
and by vain ignorance, you mean I quote the specific case law that proves you're wrong?
Blocking your dumbass.
I understand that it must be hard to be called out so clearly and have your argument so totally debunked. It's much safer and easier for you to run and hide in your echo chamber. Hopefully some day actual facts can reach you in there. Good luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you are upset that J.D. Vance is supporting the status quo crony capitalism and wants to "circle the wagons" to protect that?
no, i'm upset he's a theocratic fascist that wants to steal people's rights.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Why do you think she hates him?
she has basically stopped being anywhere near him for years. For example, she never once showed up for Trump's trial. He flew in republican politicians from all over the country, his children (not baron) showed up. But not Melania. She rarely shows up at public events he's at or at campaign events.
Also, why would she not hate him? He's a renowned narcissist, a serial philanderer and a civilly liable rapist. She was reportedly very unhappy about trump's election run in 2016 and was devastated when he won the election. She absolutely hated being 1st lady and living in the white house. The latest reporting is that if trump wins in 2024 she wont move back to the white house.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The full text is NOT in your source
Did you scroll down? I just double checked and it is definitely there. Hit control F and paste this: "Whether Vance’s foreword to Dawn’s Early Light survives this dustup is anyone’s guess. Here’s the text in full:"
This is more of the same "bloodbath" bullshit typical of propagandists taking shit out of context.
I wasn't directing you to the article, i didn't even read it. The point was the full text of the foreword at the bottom.
Feel free to cut and paste the entire forward or provider an actual link to the full text.
I did. You failed to scroll down.
If you have to play these 6 degrees of separation games, then there is no there there.
what? The guy in charge of project 2025 wrote a book about it. JD vance wrote the foreword of that book. That's what, 1 degree of separation
It's like saying Trump admired one thing Hitler did, therefore Trump is literally Hitler in all things.
no, it would be like if trump wrote the foreword to mein kampf and me saying "trump admires hitler". It would be a 100% accurate statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
which ideas...this looks suspiciously like one of those gotcha quotes out of context. The ones propagandists are famous for.
he wrote that in the foreword of a book on project 2025 “Dawn’s Early Light”. Even if you ignore the quote entirely, he wrote the foreword in a book about project 2025 written by the primary architect of project 2025. You don't write the foreword of a book about project 2025 without knowing what it is and liking it.
Here is the top of the "about" page for that book:
With a Foreword by J.D. Vance
Heritage Foundation president and Project 2025 head Kevin Roberts outlines a peaceful "Second American Revolution" for voters looking to shift the power back into the hands of the people.
EDIT:
I found the full text of the foreword:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
How would you know that? He is a big backer of project 2025Citation needed and some left-wing media source does not cut it. Actually find a clip of him saying it.
here you go. he was nice enough to put it in writing. In a book written by the main architect of project 2025 talking about how great project 2025 is, he wrote the foreword to the book. Part of what JD vance wrote is “In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon,”
Hard to say you don't support project 2025, when you said those ideas are an essential weapon.
Okay so we are talking in generalities here. In general you will find more people with children that care what the world will look like after they are dead than people who will not even exist in that world or have children 100 years from now.
citation needed. Sounds like you're just pulling that out of your ass.
Wrong, the economic freedom index which tracks how republican a countries economic policies are, finds a direct correlation between economic freedom and quality of life.
And that quality of life has been declining for decades in large part due to republican policies. The real purchasing power of a worker today is a fraction of what it was in the 70's and 80's. That is what republican policy has been doing. Your generation is poorer than your parents generation. Your children will be poorer than you (statistically speaking). That is just a fact.
I am literally trying to prevent my kids from living in the economic interventionist states that have the same policies you support such as Venezuela, North Korea, South Africa or Nazi Germany.
lol what? No one has suggested policies like those countries, except trump. He says stuff that would be right at home in those countries all the time.
It doesn't make sense that people vote democrat for free shit
this is a common, and stupid, assumption. Public services aren't free. Everyone knows that. They are just much better services that are available to everyone. We all pay into them, we all get the benefit. The alternative is everyone being gouged and paying way more for worse service. Like americans paying WAY more for healthcare than any other country and getting worse outcomes, unless you're rich.
at the expense of the future and even at the expense of the economy where if we rejected welfare people would not need it because of how prosperous society would be.
lol, this is just sad. Trickle down economics doesn't work. It was bullshit they sold to you to make you think that letting the rich take all the money would somehow benefit you. Decades later the rich have gotten richer, and the middle class is being crushed out of existence. But sure, if you just keeping handing the rich more money, maybe some day that work.
So why do you oppose prosperity, reduced poverty and support cutting the dicks off of children?
I absolutely support prosperity. I vehemently disagree that republicans' definition of prosperity is the same as the one everyone else uses. To republican elected officials, prosperity just means that the rich get richer. They don't care about anyone else and actively work against their interests.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
It doesn't even matter if she has no attraction for him, because at the end of the day she is going to be sucking that fat orange cock. Haters gonna hate.
my money says she hasn't touched him in years. She hates his guts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So then you are saying it's weird to count kids that can't select that power.
yes. of course it is. They are part of the population, so of course they are counted as part of the population. They are not capable of voting, so of course they shouldn't have the power of voting. That is pretty basic logic.
If that policy was reversed, you would have less representation in the anti-cat lady populations. (pro family with lots of kids)
That is why people like vance are doing this. They know their ideas are unpopular. Their goal is try to ram their ideas down people's throats even though most of their policies get like 40% support. Many of them get less than that. And finding ways to get their supporters to vote multiple times is one of the only ways they can think of try to get votes even though their "ideas" are terrible.
Slave owners and maga moms shouldn't get extra representatives.
lol, in this scenario vance wants parents to be the slave owners. They want to be able to have political power on behalf of their children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This is how I know you are a partisan hack. He most certainly is not going to ban porn should trump die and he takes over. Nor does he want to genocide women or would have people vote for their children.
How would you know that? He is a big backer of project 2025. Will he do every single point in it? Maybe not. But most of it is hugely unpopular. So being tied to it at all is a huge problem. And he definitely has ties to it. That will be used against trump.
It's also common sense that if you have no children, there is no reason to think in a long time horizon.
common sense doesn't mean it actually makes sense. Most people don't think long time horizon whether they have children or not. Having children doesn't change that.
For example I have kids, so the policies I support I have to be concerned about their impact 100 years down the road
well, you support republican policies which are all about gutting the middle class. So either you're lying, you really hate your children, you're an idiot, or you're a millionaire and are cheering on the destruction of 95% of the population to fund your lavish lifestyle. So you would seem like a perfect example of how parents don't actually know what would be good for their children.
meanwhile cat ladies can focus on what types of free gibs they can get in the short term.
this doesn't even make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think the right argues that since children are counted in the census for representation, their interests should also be directly represented in elections. Parents voting on behalf of their children could help ensure that policies affecting children are given due consideration. Kind of like when slave owners got extra representation. Either allow parents to vote, or stop counting kids.
You know how people keep saying republicans are weird. All of that is weird. Normal people don't think like that. Normal people don't want to be compared to slave owners. But you want to gain political power because you have guardianship of other humans. That's super weird man. Doubly so to people who don't have children.
Children will inherit the future shaped by today's policies. Allowing parents to vote on their behalf ensures that decisions that the children will have to pay for are made with long-term considerations for the future welfare of those children.
lol no. It just gives more power to a specific subset of people and republicans are guessing that would increase their power. Parents don't have any idea what will benefit their children. How could they possibly know what policy today will make the world better for them in 20 or 30 years? Parents already vote for policies that screw over their children and have for decades. This is just a shameless attempted power grab. And it's a pretty obvious one. Vance and his pro-natalist bullshit is a huge drag on the ticket.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's on MSNBC, I'll scrounge around for a clip.
ohh, so you don't mean on the left. You mean or corporate centrist news. Yeah I totally buy you hearing it there. But those people are idiots. One of the main hosts on MSNBC is literally a republican elected official. To pretend like they are "the left" is kind of funny.
That's always gonna be a problem as long as Harris is tied in to Biden's policies with Israel.
no, it really isn't. The VP has no power over foreign policy. And when war criminal BB showed up to give a speech, she walked out. I don't think there is any issue there. But there probably would have been with Shapiro.
If she loses Pennsylvania, it won't matter whether or not she can lock down the Somali and Muslim vote. (which is still not a slam dunk)
Like I said, there's no evidence she would have been better off with Shapiro in Pennsylvania. He has alot of baggage. He could have harmed her more than he helped her. Shapiro is popular in Pennsylvania, but alot of that could just be sugar high. He ran unopposed in the primary and ran against a super unpopular republican candidate. It's easy to like someone relatively normal when the other option is mastriano. That doesn't necessarily mean you'd change your vote for president because he is on the ticket.
Besides, Wals is also well liked, respected and has a great record. He could also help turnout in Pennsylvania.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You do know that no matter who Trump picked the media was just going to lie and say a bunch of retarded shit about them.
for sure, people always try to bring down the "enemy" candidate. That's totally normal. But JD is a gold mine of horrible shit.
This guy basically said in a speech that having a kid gives you a different perspective in life and the leftist media lied and Said he claims that single people should not have the right to vote.
oh no, he said alot more than that. He said parents should be able to vote multiple times, once for themselves and once for each child. He said that people without children have no stake in the future of the country and therefore can't be trusted to be leaders. He accused 3 democratic leaders of being "childless cat ladies", 2 of the 3 have children. And one of the 3 was a gay man, who has children. And when he was rightly called out for this being bullshit and offensive, he apologized to the cats. I can't even imagine what he was thinking.
If Trump picked Obama these retards would say."OBAMA is a right-wing maniac too dangerous to be VP. He was literally drone attacking foreign civilians and weaponized the justice department to go after whistleblowers. He also is anti woman, which is why he married a man"
Obama ruled as a pretty right wing president. His signature health care policy was directly lifted from a right wing think tank. It was almost verbatim Mitt Romney's plan for healthcare. Obama does not have the sterling reputation you seem to think he does.
It's absurd dude
oh no. JD is terrible choice. He is pretty anti women, he is a theocrat who wants religion to be part of government, he is fully on board with project 2025 which is just pure evil and anti american. He is the most unpopular VP pick in modern history. Trump could have thrown a list of elected republicans in the air and grabbed one at random and almost certainly gotten a much better candidate. He must be furious with his idiot sons for pushing JD.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most respected people on the left say the threw the election by not locking down Pennsylvania with Shapiro.
I have heard literally no one say that. So I don't know who these people are.
and even if these hypothetical people said that, they are wrong. There's no evidence Shapiro would actually have secured pensnsylvania. And with his potential for controversy, he could have cost them way more than he brought them.
For example, he is super Pro-Israel and that is quite toxic given that Israel is carrying out a genocide at the moment. He also had a case when he was a district attorney where he knew the victim and the suspect, but his office confirmed it was a suicide even though the victim had 20 stab wounds. While it's certainly not clear that Shapiro actually did anything wrong in this case, it would have been poured over by news outlets for the next few months and been a huge distraction whether he did something wrong or not. Shapiro would have been a huge gift to trump and his conspiracy theory pushers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
She made a great choice. Comparing the two is just sad. JD is the least popular VP nominee in modern history. He has done nothing but harm Trump's campaign and will continue to do so.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s what I said. She’s undefined/unknown entity
no, she isn't an unknown entity. She is an entity where the only things most people knew about her were negative. That is changing quite rapidly.
But she has a lot of baggage with her.
i'm not sure what you mean by that. But I guarantee you JD vance's baggage is much more damaging.
Especially considering she was rated the more liberal Senator.
by who?
That’s your opinion, not fact. Biden was losing to Trump on virtually every issue.
that was based almost entirely on his age and his perceived mental decline. Not because he had bad policy. When you actually list his policies and what they do, they are very popular. That is why it's hard to attack her on Biden's record, because point by point, it was pretty good.
Lol, GovTrack made the rating, and she was literally a Senator from California, the cesspool of liberalism
she was a junior senator for a single year when they made that "ranking". They took it down because they decided that a year of record wasn't enough to determine a ranking. But fox does love talking about that.
And then the story is going to change to something else and everyone will forget about it. Americans have relatively short memories when it comes to politics. Plus recency bias
project 2025 isn't going anywhere. The list of evil, insane shit in there is astounding. And JD ties trump even closer to it. I don't think that story is going away. But you can dream. Also, he's still saying stupid shit, so it's hard to forget something still happening. Like his calling women crazy cat ladies, then when told how offensive and stupid that is, he appologized to the cats.... How braindead do you have to be.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Was the intention of this list to make them sound like Nazi's? Because if so, you nailed it. Most of this list would fit in perfectly in a speech coming from hitler.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
i'm just surprised he got her to show up to a campaign event. I thought for sure she was just going to ghost him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
My understanding is that Shapiro has too much baggage and too big an ego/ambition. He is apparently staunchly pro-Israel, and therefore pro genocide. I'm pleasantly surprised by Kamala's choice.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
we know that they weren't presented with any evidence nor a reasonable theory of the crime
that is obviously incorrect. I mean, what does that even mean? How is there not a reasonable theory of the crime? He raped her in a changing room in a department store. We all know that.
nor any believable explanation as to why she waited till Trump was the leader of the free world
for the same reason why most women don't come forward. Powerful men sexually assault women all the time. Most don't say anything because they won't be believed, the man will try to harm them, or because people in general will negatively judge them. So they stay silent. This is an extremely common thing. She came forward because years later she was no longer concerned about those things and felt the country deserved to know he is a rapist.
I mean that even if a person had committed to obedience to the laws of the USA and New York State they have no duty whatsoever to consider the proclamations of the so called jury or the so called judge binding in any way.
lol, that is really stupid. They are absolutely binding. And you know that.
The whole psuedocourt was cosplaying.
you aren't even making any sense. That was a real courtroom, a real judge and a real jury. And you know that. You are being REALLY dense.
It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.
lol no. He was found civilly liable for raping her. That means it is now an established fact that he did it. If he says she is lying, he is automatically defaming her because a jury has already found that to be a defamatory lie. So if he does it again, he is guilty again. Which is why he was found liable the 2nd time.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
She peaked because she’s still an unknown entity, a generic Democrat. When they define her, it will go down.
I disagree. All people have heard about her for the last 4 years is occasional negative stories. She's had basically no positive press for years until like a week ago. She hasn't even had a chance to say what policies she supports. Once she has a chance to tell people the stuff she is going to do to actually improve things, she will go up further.
He doesn’t need to. All he has to do is tie Biden policies to Kamala. The connection is easy.
see, that's a problem. Because Biden didn't really have many bad policies. And when it was biden, that was fine. All they had to do was say "things aren't perfect? blame biden he's in charge". But harris isn't in charge. If you want to paint her with bidens failures, they will need to be more specific. And they have nothing.
He can also play with her record as the most liberal Senator in the nation.
lol, that is stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Have you not heard of Bernie Sanders? Or elizabeth Warren?
The VP pick historically makes no difference. The President sets policy, not the VP.
normally this is true. But, like you said, trump is a known quantity. There's nothing to talk about for him. Everyone knows who and what he is. But Vance is new. There's lots to talk about. SOOO many scandals to bring up. From his alleged (and probably false) accusations of being overly familiar with living room furniture, to his hatred of women, to his constantly changing positions (and names), to his calling trump "America's hitler", to his heavy support of project 2025. The list goes on and on. The media is burned out on running negative stories on trump because everyone already knows he's a piece of shit. But vance is new shit territory to talk about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
You clearly lack attention to detail and reading comprehension skills. I've only mentioned, cited and quoted from that case 6-12x throughout this threaded topic.
and yet, when I quoted directly from the ruling in that case, you didn't know what it was.... suspicious. It's almost like you didn't read the case and only got cherry picked sentences to try to support your incorrect position.
You're the one caught cherry-picking individual sentences out trying to mislead people with the same regurgitated nonsense the left & MSM lies about redundantly.
lol I'm quoting entire paragraphs directly from the ruling. The exact words of the chief justice who authored the opinion in the case you are citing. And he is explicitly saying you are wrong.
She is not, not according to the legislative history behind the creation and passage of the 14th and the citizenship clause.
the chief justice of the supreme court says you are wrong. Actually read the majority opinion in the case you are citing. I even quoted sections of it for you that explicitly say you are wrong.
Yes there is a legitimate question about it, as I brought it up as others have too.
people can talk about how martians are secretly ruling the world. It doesn't make it a legitimate question.
No, it is not established law it is the bastardization of a law that has been misread, misapplied, and washed over with DemoKKKratic intervention and running interference so their anchor/tether babies can get (illegitimate) citizenship in order to be added to their demoKKKratic voting roles.
ahh there we go. You kind of acknowledge you are wrong. You say that "a law that has been misread, misapplied". So you acknowledge that the way the law is understood is that all children born in america are automatically citizens, you just don't think it should be interpreted that way. And that's fine. You can think that the law has been misunderstood and/or want it to be applied differently. You would come across alot less crazy that way. But saying that kamala isn't a citizen just sounds like insane nonsense because obviously, the way the law has been interpreted for the last 100 years, she is.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well minus the "best of their ability"
you choose not to believe he's a rapist. But there is no evidence they did anything short of their duty in examining the evidence and coming a conclusion. You just want to believe that trump isn't a rapist (despite all the super creepy shit he's done over the years) so you choose to believe that it's everyone else who is wrong.
Fake jury
lol what does that even mean? Do you think they aren't people? Do you think they were just cosplaying as jurors and random people showed up instead? Seriously, what does "fake jury" mean?
When I say true law and order may yet prevail I mean that real judges and real juries could easily discard your so called "established legal fact". They have fancy words for it as I'm sure you know but they boil down to "we don't care bro, that was bullshit"
lol it's called an appeal. And yes, trump has appealed the decision. But the only way it can be overturned is if they can find some issue with how the trial was done. It's possible they will find one, but doesn't seem super likely.
That is why I mean by "your law" vs "my law". "your law" is a dangerous and disgusting delusion having little to no connection with the concept known as "English Common Law", the traditional legal foundation of the USA.
lol you think English common law doesn't have laws about defamation? They absolutely do. They have laws against rape too. Trump did both of those things.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Kamala is peaking too early and she isn’t a known entity while Trump is.
Who said she peaked? She's barely had any time at all to campaign.
Trump was winning against Biden with minimal spending.
I would argue biden would still have beaten trump. But yes, he was ahead in the polls. But Trump had spent years and years painting joe biden as old and ineffectual. And while most of what he was saying was lies, alot of it had stuck. He has no time to get that kind of stuff to stick to Kamala. And so far, he's got nothing. All he's doing is showing he doesn't know what a mixed race person is, and that he is super racist.
Trump is a known entity. Negative ads don’t hurt him
Trump is a known entity that is true. But JD vance is a whole new ball game. He is a gold mine of horrible, horrible things. He also ties trump even more to project 2025. The guy who was in charge of project 2025 wrote a book talking about how great it is. JD wrote the foreword for the book. Picking JD as VP makes it even more impossible to pretend Trump doesn't support project 2025. And that is SUPER toxic.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Tulsi Gabbard had the last laugh 4 years ago
how so? Kamala is about to be president. I haven't heard anything about Tulsi in quite some time. Her political career is probably over. All she can do now is be trotted out on right wing news shows occasionally before going back into obscurity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh so, Kamala not getting a single vote in the primaries
the whole democratic party is pretty happy about Kamala replacing biden. Independents are too. The ones upset about it are republicans
or Trump almost getting removed by a bullet is "projection" (like the movies)
he almost got removed by a bullet by a crazy, right wing loon with an assault rifle. The search history on his computer showed that he was also googling famous mass shooters, prominent democrats and celebrities to try to assassinate too. Trump just happened to be holding a rally close to him.
So pretending like this was somehow to affect the election is stupid.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Just go see the cacklin compilation. Talk about weird
lol this is just sad. A woman laughs. My god!! she's so weird. But you think trump talking about electrifying sharks and bring up the "great hanibal lector" is totally normal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
Posting what appears to be "quotes" but failing to provide linked sources.
lol I was quoting directly from the ruling by the court. The fact that you don't know that kinda confirms my suspicion that you didn't actually read about the case directly. You are pulling quotes from some right wing conspiracy site that is picking individual sentences out to try to mislead people.
you could have found this in like 2 seconds by searching the text, but here is a link for you.
Kamala is not a legitimate US citizen.
she absolutely is. There is no legitimate question about that. It has been established law for over a century.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Jury - people who to the best of their ability weigh the evidence and decide on the elements of a criminal or civil case
and that is exactly what happened. so you're not making any sense. They looked at the evidence and determined that the most likely scenario is that he did it.
Them coming to a conclusion and that conclusion being true are two different things.
you can choose not to believe it if you want. But a jury of his peers says he did. In the eyes of the law, he did it. Whether or not you believe that is unimportant.
You are a rapist <- Me saying that doesn't mean you are a rapist.
of course not. You're one random dude on the internet, not a jury of my peers who heard the available evidence and came to a legally binding conclusion.
If you are saying that you are not an adjudicated rapist then your definition of "adjudication" doesn't include baseless assertions by random people.
it isn't baseless and she wasn't random. She was a woman who was raped by trump.
There are no "eyes of the law" if it does not mean "the objective meaning of the law" there are the eyes of judges and juries, and real ones could certainly allow him to sue for trillions.
when I say "eyes of the law" I mean it is an established legal fact. Trump cannot say that he didn't sexually assault her in a court. It is a fact. If he said otherwise he would be committing as crime. He has to be very, very careful about it in public either. If he implies she isn't telling the truth, she can sue him again since a jury has already ruled that he did do that and so saying otherwise is defamatory.
this clown pretend court.
oh the court is very, very real. The money trump has to pay her should prove that.
I can't betray what I have never sworn loyalty to and I have never (as an adult) and never will swear blind obedience to any group of people or organization.
no one has ever asked you to swear blind obedience. the courts are filled with humans and can be flawed like anyone else. That is why there is an appeal process. Trump has appealed the decision. I doubt he'll win.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have actually seen MSM only reporting Trump lately as "liable for sexual assault" lately.
there's been a lot of news lately. It doesn't change the fact that he's a rapist.
State laws that charge you for federal crimes should be removed just as surely as Jim Crow.
A state didn't charge him for federal crimes. They charged him with state crimes. But the state crime is more serious if he was doing it to cover up another crime, and a federal crime counts.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The so called jury can say whatever they want, it does not change reality.
1) they aren't "so called". They are a jury. By any definition.
2) it does change reality. It makes trump an adjudicated rapist. That is a legal fact. Anyone and everyone call publicly call him a rapist and he can't sue them because in the eyes of the law, it is the truth.
I would kill to remove the constraints of what that manhaten pseudo-court calls "law and order" from myself and others.
So you're either an idiot who wants anarchy, or you're a traitor who want an angry minority to have the power to overthrow the laws created by the people.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I choose not to believe it because there was no evidence
a jury of his peers says otherwise.
and every indication of dishonesty and ulterior motivation both in the accusation
why? She told people about this long before trump was a politician.
the behavior of the pseudo-judge
lol, this is just sad. Just because they ruled against trump you attempt to downplay their credentials.
and the dishonor of the pseudo-jury
again, sad. You can disagree with their decision, but how could you even claim they are a "pseudo-jury"? That doesn't even make sense.
Not my law.
lol, you are bound by the same laws as everyone else. You aren't a special little butterfly who gets his own laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You clearly adhere to the “whoever makes the first accusation of racism is in the right” school of thought.
I didn't accuse you of racism. I accused you of making the same type of arguments they do. You group a large amount of people into a group based on your opinion of their characteristics, then generalize their intentions and beliefs based on your flawed generalizations. I'm not saying I'm automatically right because you're doing this. I'm saying you haven't said anything useful. You just make vapid, useless, generalizations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I will admit that my explanation isn’t exactly flattering to postmodernist
it has nothing to do with flattering. It's like saying asian people can't drive, or blonds are dumb. It's just stereotyping people based on your flawed perceptions.
3) you have only demonstrated how you fit into my summary rather than depart from it.
this is just dismissive. You make sweeping generalizations about 100's of millions of people and dismiss the arguments of anyone in your stereotyped group.
You aren't doing anything useful or informative any more than racists or xenophobes are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
My post was about understanding why people take the sides they do on this conflict.
but your post was vapid. It just tried to reduce thought on a complicated issue to "western=bad". People are capable of looking at a complicated situation and coming to a conclusion. You said nothing that would help anyone actually understand better. You just listed some stereotypes.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Something he has been proven in court to have done by the way.No such proof exists.
he was found to have done so by a jury of his peers. You choose not to believe it, but the law says he did. As do many other women he sexually assaulted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Your views exemplify exactly what I am talking about… to a T.
someone who examines global events rationally? You didn't even attempt to argue why anything I said was incorrect.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, you delude yourself into thinking innocuous things are evil.
he bragged about sexually assaulting women. He bragged about taking away women's rights. There is no shortage of evil things he has said.
and by "sexually assaulting" you mean "hypothetically consensually touching",
no, i mean sexually assaulting. He didn't say I go up to them and ask them if I can touch them, and once they say yes I touch them. That would be consensually touching. He said "I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait,”. His statement is that he starts kissing them immediately without their consent. And since he is a star he gets away with it. That's sexual assault. Something he has been proven in court to have done by the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
non Western = poor = oppressed = inherently good
oof, there a big dose of racism.
rich and powerful = oppressor = inherently bad
lol no. Oppressor=oppressor. no one objective can look at what Israel has been doing to the palestinians and think they are not oppressive.
no amount of malevolent action will make them decidedly bad.
this is false. Hamas is bad. Palestinians are not. Most people can see that distinction. In the same sense that the KKK is bad, white people are not.
Conversely, when a group has been deemed an oppressor, no amount of benevolent action will cause them to be viewed as good.
i guess that's true. if you are murdering 10's of thousands of children you are going to be seen as bad no matter how many puppies you're nice to.
or the argument is made that Palestinians have undergone similar at the hands of the Jews.
yes, that argument is made because Israel is committing genocide.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Most genocides in history were preceded by people saying "let's kill them all" in public. Hitler wrote a book about how he was going to take over a huge area of land to the east. Then people were all like "huh, he said he was going to stop at the Sudetenland?! Why is he attacking Poland?"
lol comparing Trump to hitler? An apt comparison. I'm a little surprised you are making it though.
Yes, when people tell you they are planning something incredibly evil, sometimes people pretend they didn't hear it, or that he didn't mean it. Trump has said countless evil things, but his followers just ignore it.
That was actually a secret recording..
true. And he was publicly bragging about sexually assaulting women. Just because he wasn't intending to be recorded doesn't make it less publicly said.
and he was bragging that he didn't need to sexually assault women because so many consent to celebrities.
no, he was very clear. He goes up to women and sexually assaults them. He doesn't even wait. And they let him (ie they don't physically stop him or report the sexual assault) because he is famous. If you don't ask for and receive consent, then it is sexual assault. And he was very clear that he does not.
As to the OP, yes he was saying that an excessive turnout is required to cancel the cheating. He claims to be able to stop the cheating by next election at which point an abnormally high turnout won't be required to crush those ever dwindling (and very unlikely to be 80 million) deep state sheeple.
He was talking to the religious theocrats. So I took his statement to mean that if he gets elected he will give them all their evil desires during his 1st term, so they won't need to vote again because they've already destroyed america.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Are you talking about the statement where he said women allowed him (consented for) to grab them by the pussy?
No, I'm referring to the statement where he said he walks up and grabs them by the pussy before they have a chance to react. he brags about sexually assaulting them and that he can get away with it because he's famous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
The report explained the situation.
Why are we repeating ourselves? Yes hamas uses shitty tactics. That is bad. Israel is engaging in a campaign of mass murder with the goal of exterminating or expelling all palestinians. That is genocide. Nothing Hamas has or could theoretically do would justify that. Israel is the far worse offender.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
If it meant what you thought it meant, he wouldn't say it out loud.
while I agree with you about what he probably meant, I disagree with this statement. the man is an idiot. He says things ALL THE TIME that would get anyone else drummed out of politics forever. Like that he like sexually assaulting women. That he wants to have sex with his daughter. That he plans to abuse the power of the presidency to attack and perceived enemies. etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Courts don't mention irrelevant details in final rulings, at least not in honest interpretations of rulings.
it was a detail of the case. Courts absolutely do mention details in their rulings. Amber's point is nonsense and it proves she hasn't actually read the ruling. She is going off of 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of it. Looking at the ruling it is obvious what they mean. For example, this is an excerpt written by the chief justice in the ruling. They are quite clear that the 14th amendment applies to all children born in the US whose parents don't fall into specific categories. Ex invading soldiers, children of diplomats etc. So as long as Kamala's parents weren't foreign agents, then there is no question she is a legitimate citizen. Pretending she is not is willful ignorance.
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases – children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State – both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
1:32. Elon Musk Supports Palestine. Same with Putin. Zelenski supports Israel; maybe the left can stop funding Ukraine from that if they are going to be so pro Palestine.
I don't have to agree with someone on every single issue because I like them. I don't have to disagree with every single thing someone says because I dislike them. Musk is sliding in Nazi territory. I'm sure that has something to do with his support of Israel's enemies...
Putin supports things that disrupt the west. Israel is a key partner of the west. So undermining them helps open cracks for him to exploit.
So both musk and Putin are on the correct side, but probably for horrible reasons.
Zelenski wants to be friends with the west. It's pretty hard to do that and oppose Israel. The Pro-Israel lobby is extremely strong in the US. Even now, the US is still supplying bombs Israel to use on children and few news outlets will speak out about this. I don't know if Zelenski really supports israel, or if he just has to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
"Hamas relies on the Israeli government’s aim to minimise collateral damage, and is also aware of the West‘s sensitivity towards civilian casualties.
1) they are literally bombing hospitals and refugee camps and cutting off food for civilians. So no, this is factually false. They are intentionally targetting civilians. So in that sense, there is no collateral damage. Because collateral damage is an accidental killing of civilians when targeting someone else. This is intentional, widespread murder.
2) this document covers activity up to 2014. so it's not super relevant to the genocide being carried out right now. historical things done by hamas don't justify mass murder today.
By engaging in these acts, Hamas employs a win-win scenario: if indeed the IDF uses kinetic power, and the number of civilian causalities surges, Hamas can use that as a weapon in the lawfare it conducts.
I agree that hamas uses shitty tactics. I also know Israel are intentionally bombing civilians. It is a campaign of genocide. And it doesn't matter what hamas or anyone else has done, genocide is pure evil. I can condemn hamas for their evil and also call out Israel for their evil which is 50x worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
their ruling was not related to them being legal residents. It was a fact of the case, but not critical to the outcome.Yes, it was critical to the outcome, which is precisely why it was stated so many times throughout the ruling.
please, just read an actual summary of the decision. The majority opinion was that anyone born in america whose parents were not an agent of a foreign government gets citizenship. The minority opinion was what you seem to be espousing. I have no idea why you keep repeating yourself. The ruling in the case is the exact opposite of what your opinion is.
And that Wikipedia page didn't list any law/statute he was charged with. Try again.
jesus christ. It listed the crimes he was charged with. you want the exact laws and statutes that made those crimes? I'm not playing this game. You're a big girl. You're capable of basic reading. I gave you a link to the crimes he was charged with. I'm not going to hold your hand the whole way through it.
nope. They ruled that trump might not be able to be charged. They said nothing about his co-conspirators. Their ruling was only about a sitting president. Eastman is still going to trial and probably prison.No, Eastman is not.
he's been indicted in both arizona and georgia. He's almost certainly going to prison. And since the georgia case is a state case, it can't be pardoned even if trump does win.
Sure, they're crimes but you did not cite the law (i.e., statute). Allegations in title only doesn't prove shit.Cite the law.
I'm not your baby sitter. I showed you a link to some of the charges he is facing. If you want to know what laws made fraud a crime, you can look it up yourself. I know you're just trying to waste my time.
Regardless, you couldn't cite a law as requested.
you're either lazy or just trying to waste my time. I showed what he was charged with. If you want to know what law made fraud and conspiracy illegal, you can look it up yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
Okay, then cite the law that states if it is discovered that a person was issued a birth certificate in the US in contradiction to the originalist meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause that that certificate cannot be retroactively taken away.
no it can't. They were lawfully issued citizenship. If the courts change their mind and decide to interpret the law another way, that doesn't invalidate their citizenship. It's like if you pass a law today and try to charge someone for committing it a year ago.
yes, they listed the facts of this case and the facts showed that in this scenario the parents were legal residents.
their ruling was not related to them being legal residents. It was a fact of the case, but not critical to the outcome.
Thank you for finally admitting that fact. Applying the same facts to Kamala's parents, they were not legal residents, they were under the political allegiance of their respective countries, and Kamala is not a legitimate US Citizen.
you aren't getting it. Using my previous example again, it's like saying that a murderer had red hair, some other person who has black hair can't be a murder. It doesn't make any sense. The parents in that case being legal residents was not critical to their ruling. They did not make their ruling based on the residency status of the parents.
he was charged with trying to steal an election.Yeah, what statute would that be again?
I linked you to a page on his crimes already. If you don't want to read it, whatever. But don't pretend like I haven't already given you this.
Is it now...I don't think so, and recent ruling by SCOTUS has put a huge damper on a lot of that.
nope. They ruled that trump might not be able to be charged. They said nothing about his co-conspirators. Their ruling was only about a sitting president. Eastman is still going to trial and probably prison.
No law was cited. Try again.
do you even read at all? let me quote for you "to advance "fake electors" in Arizona led to his indictment on conspiracy, fraud and forgery charges there in April 2024."
Last time I checked conspiracy, fraud and forgery were all crimes.
That suspension is on appeal, and I foresee him getting it back.
you can foresee whatever you want. He's going to prison unless trump pardons him.
Created: