TRUMP 2024

465,926 Views | 6138 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by Werewolf
ncsupack1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GuerrillaPack • 3:39p, 5/31/24
GuerrillaPack said:
ncsupack1 said:
GuerrillaPack said:
ncsupack1 said:
GuerrillaPack said:
ncsupack1 said:


Question for you, if you live in NC what's your thoughts on Mark Robinson?
Support him. A real conservative, and not a pro-Establishment RINO cuck like Tillis or Burr. Love his courage to take bold stances against the Sodomite LGBTQ agenda and on other "verboten" issues that the RINOs won't touch.
So him paying for the murder of a baby is okay with you? BTW, he never to my knowledge mentioned it until he was asked. FYI, I to plan on voting for him. So incoming name calling isn't needed here.
Of course I oppose abortion. Has Mark Robinson apologized for that? Doesn't he himself condemn what he did? If so, will you forgive him? He's not out here still supporting abortion. That's the communist Democrats. They are the ones foaming at the mouth to defend being able to murder millions of unborn children.
Why didn't he bring it up before he was called out? He sure has heck called out others for it. If he felt so bad, why didn't he share his shame with others who may have at times thought about getting one? Seems like that would be the right thing.
What is your deal here man? You are voting for the man, but you want to argue with me all day about this? Don't you have anything better to do?

Do you really support Robinson or not?


I don't have a deal. But thanks for answering my question. BTW, the pop ups are getting old when trying to post.
Reply Quote
1
GuerrillaPack
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to grantwolf • 3:43p, 5/31/24
grantwolf said:
GuerrillaPack said:
grantwolf said:


""A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," - DJT
Re-read that genius, and read it in context of DJT's larger comments. Isn't DJT alleging that it is the DEMOCRATS who are "allowing" the termination of all rules, including the Constitution?
Nope. That quote is not at all taken out of context. But lol at the attempt.
Hahahahaha. So you actually believe that Trump is essentially saying "I support the termination of all rules and the Constitution"???? Not that he was making an argument that the Democrats with their "fraudulent" use of the courts are the ones "allowing" the termination of all rules and the Constitution?

Wow, Leftists are even dumber than I thought.

It's not hard to see how Leftists fall for all of these laughable hoaxes and preposterous lies (eg, 70 genders, global warming hoax, "we are evolved monkeys that came about by random chance after a big explosion", etc). They have an average IQ of about 70, and are so brainwashed into believing absurd lies that their brains are totally scrambled.
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
packofwolves
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:48p, 5/31/24
A bit off topic, but LOL at De Niro.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4694239-broadcasters-de-niro-award-trump-courthouse-hush-money-trial/
Reply Quote
2
ncsupack1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packofwolves • 4:18p, 5/31/24
packofwolves said:
A bit off topic, but LOL at De Niro.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4694239-broadcasters-de-niro-award-trump-courthouse-hush-money-trial/
He has completely lost it.
Reply Quote
2
Civilized
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gulfstream4 • 4:18p, 5/31/24
Gulfstream4 said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:
grantwolf said:
caryking said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again…. As bad as I see the Dems, the Pubs are worse. Dems play to win, Pubs are WEAK!!

"THE DEMS" didn't make the decision to have a habitual criminal and disgusting human being lead their party. "THE DEMS" didn't pass on multiple opportunities to distance themselves from him. "THE DEMS" didn't pass on impeachment, citing that the judicial process should deal with Trump, rather than themselves (and then cry "political witch-hunt" when he was indicted on his multiple crimes).

Start taking some responsibility for your party's own decisions.

I get that it's too late now for anyone to admit this to themselves or their constituents, so the only option is to claim that everyone's out to get Trump.

It is indeed a sad time for America, but not for any of the reasons that you guys think.


The issue that I have with this whole situation, the gates are now open for anyone to be gone after. This isn't going to just stop with Trump. When it happens again we can thank the Democrats for it. I hope you will be either okay with it or stay on the sidelines. This whole thing was bad.

Is Joe Biden going to be impeached soon?

If not, why not? Because Republicans think he committed impeachable acts and are just looking the other way? Or because the couldn't find enough evidence?

You can try to chase charges all you want. You still have to find actual evidence sufficient to convince a grand jury to indict. And if you do find that evidence, the person needs to be charged whether they're Joe Schmo or a past President.

Which is America more harmed by?

a.) Setting a precedent that a sitting American president can commit multiple unrelated felonies, including those crimes committed in conjunction with trying to overturn an election that he lost, without fear of legal consequences or...

b.) Setting a precedent that politicians who have committed indictable offenses may well be pursued legally for those potential crimes, even in the presence of some political motivation to do so?

Y'all are nuts for thinking that Presidents should for some reason be above the law.

Y'all are also obsessed with the idea that Trump shouldn't be charged, because he was a past President, while failing to recognize that position is every bit as political as the position that he should be pursued for charges. At the end of the day, the politics wash. It has to be evidence-driven.

So good luck with your witch hunt. Go find the evidence. And when you do, charge Biden or Hunter or whomever.


Should we go after Bill Clinton for paying Paula Jones $800,000 to keep quiet before he ran for President?

No. There's nothing illegal about settling out of court to end a civil suit.
Reply Quote
1
SmaptyWolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packofwolves • 4:28p, 5/31/24
packofwolves said:
"My big disappointment is with the jury. Juries are supposed to be a check and balance on the excesses of prosecutors and judges. This jury failed its role of checking and balancing these excesses," Dershowitz said

Dershowitz labeled the decision the "beginning of a war of weaponization of the criminal justice system." He also heavily scrutinized the 12-person jury, noting many were likely non-Trump voters.

"They were hand-picked by the judge and by the prosecutor to be anti-Trump. These were get-Trump jurors," he explained.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/trump-conviction-kick-off-war-weaponization-us-justice-system-warns-alan-dershowitz

Dershowitz is a partisan stooge.

According to werewolf NYC is Trump country now! Ok, he's nuts, but it's definitely the case that Staten Island and Long Island are pretty bright red. There were 200 potential jurors, and Trump's lawyers had a say in which 12 of those made the cut. So yeah, give it a rest.

You can blather about the judge or the prosecutor, but going after the jury is laughable. And they had the final say in all of this.
Reply Quote
3
Civilized
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ncsupack1 • 4:30p, 5/31/24
ncsupack1 said:

I never said Biden, I'm talking about future presidents. If given enough power and a favorable DA, Republicans will try to get what they see has their pound of flesh. You say y'all, find a post that I posted that Trump shouldn't be charged.

A favorable DA and lots of evidence.

Trump just lost the legally weakest case against him. The three cases left have even more evidence than this one did. There is a boatload of evidence that he committed crimes.

So yeah, if a favorable DA has political motivations to chase a case for which he has boatloads of evidence in the future, he should definitely do that.

Why does anyone think otherwise?

Why should we not pursue cases against people who commit crimes just because they're politicians?
Reply Quote
3
Ncsufist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:35p, 5/31/24
So here is my take based on my training experience and education. The jury did what they are supposed to do. Decide based on the evidence provided and the jury instructions given to them. The problem is what was allowed in for prosecution vs what was allowed in for defense. The jury instructions. As well as how the judge read the jury instructions. Now everyone can ***** and moan about the jury makeup but there isn't anything you can do about that. Also you can't do anything about how the jury decided. There is case law for a trial where the jury literally flipped a coin and the conviction was held. Now like I said last week he would be found guilty based on what was presented. It will be overturned at appeal due to numerous civil rights violations by the judge. The jury instructions themselves will do it.
Reply Quote
1
ncsupack1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civilized • 4:38p, 5/31/24
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:

I never said Biden, I'm talking about future presidents. If given enough power and a favorable DA, Republicans will try to get what they see has their pound of flesh. You say y'all, find a post that I posted that Trump shouldn't be charged.

A favorable DA and lots of evidence.

Trump just lost the legally weakest case against him. The three cases left have even more evidence than this one did. There is a boatload of evidence that he committed crimes.

So yeah, if a favorable DA has political motivations to chase a case for which he has boatloads of evidence in the future, he should definitely do that.

Why does anyone think otherwise?

Why should we not pursue cases against people who commit crimes just because they're politicians?
What I'm saying is this long term isn't going to bond well our country. If you don't think that the Pubs aren't going to go out and try to take down a Dem president or one running, I can't help you. For me this isn't Biden or Trump. One other thing, the left will be doing the same thing Trump's supporters are right now. No matter how the evidence looks. This whole thing from the start was short sided. In fact, this could put Trump in the White House.
Reply Quote
WolfpackUSC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:40p, 5/31/24
I've always thought the country was ripe for a third party candidate to win, but it seems the opposite.
Reply Quote
1
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ncsupack1 • 4:42p, 5/31/24
ncsupack1 said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:

I never said Biden, I'm talking about future presidents. If given enough power and a favorable DA, Republicans will try to get what they see has their pound of flesh. You say y'all, find a post that I posted that Trump shouldn't be charged.

A favorable DA and lots of evidence.

Trump just lost the legally weakest case against him. The three cases left have even more evidence than this one did. There is a boatload of evidence that he committed crimes.

So yeah, if a favorable DA has political motivations to chase a case for which he has boatloads of evidence in the future, he should definitely do that.

Why does anyone think otherwise?

Why should we not pursue cases against people who commit crimes just because they're politicians?
What I'm saying is this long term isn't going to bond well our country. If you don't think that the Pubs aren't going to go out and try to take down a Dem president or one running, I can't help you. For me this isn't Biden or Trump. One other thing, the left will be doing the same thing Trump's supporters are right now. No matter how the evidence looks. This whole thing from the start was short sided. In fact, this could put Trump in the White House.


This WILL put Trump in the White House. Deranged people, like civ, that continue to justify this kangaroo court decision will just further solidify the resolve of voters to vote against his ilk. I hope he keeps it up.
Reply Quote
5
ncsupack1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WolfpackUSC • 4:42p, 5/31/24
WolfpackUSC said:
I've always thought the country was ripe for a third party candidate to win, but it seems the opposite.
This is what happens when either side have poor leadership. JMO
Reply Quote
2
WolfpackUSC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ncsupack1 • 4:43p, 5/31/24
ncsupack1 said:
WolfpackUSC said:
I've always thought the country was ripe for a third party candidate to win, but it seems the opposite.
This is what happens when either side have poor leadership. JMO


No arguments here
Reply Quote
2
ncsupack1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WolfpackUSC • 4:45p, 5/31/24
WolfpackUSC said:
ncsupack1 said:
WolfpackUSC said:
I've always thought the country was ripe for a third party candidate to win, but it seems the opposite.
This is what happens when either side have poor leadership. JMO


No arguments here
Sad state isn't it?
Reply Quote
2
WolfpackUSC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ncsupack1 • 4:47p, 5/31/24
ncsupack1 said:
WolfpackUSC said:
ncsupack1 said:
WolfpackUSC said:
I've always thought the country was ripe for a third party candidate to win, but it seems the opposite.
This is what happens when either side have poor leadership. JMO


No arguments here
Sad state isn't it?


Yup. Here's to hopefully an ACC Championship in December
Reply Quote
2
Civilized
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ncsupack1 • 5:15p, 5/31/24
ncsupack1 said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:

I never said Biden, I'm talking about future presidents. If given enough power and a favorable DA, Republicans will try to get what they see has their pound of flesh. You say y'all, find a post that I posted that Trump shouldn't be charged.

A favorable DA and lots of evidence.

Trump just lost the legally weakest case against him. The three cases left have even more evidence than this one did. There is a boatload of evidence that he committed crimes.

So yeah, if a favorable DA has political motivations to chase a case for which he has boatloads of evidence in the future, he should definitely do that.

Why does anyone think otherwise?

Why should we not pursue cases against people who commit crimes just because they're politicians?
What I'm saying is this long term isn't going to bond well our country. If you don't think that the Pubs aren't going to go out and try to take down a Dem president or one running, I can't help you. For me this isn't Biden or Trump. One other thing, the left will be doing the same thing Trump's supporters are right now. No matter how the evidence looks. This whole thing from the start was short sided. In fact, this could put Trump in the White House.

I hear you man.

I just don't care if a criminal politician gets taken down and I don't care if DA's pursue charges for which they have good evidence.

And I definitely won't be whining like some people on here (not you) are about whatever rad-lib politician it is being a victim.

The justice system is well-equipped to weigh evidence of white collar crimes and try those cases fairly against savvy, well-resourced, well-represented defendants.

If DA's pursue completely frivolous charges, they'll get thrown out (no harm done). If they pursue a weak case, they'll lose (and harm their reputation if they do this enough times) (no harm done).

If they pursue a strong case, well that's their job so that's also fine. If DA's or judges misbehave, the case will get overturned on appeal.

The market for frivolous cases corrects itself because there are disincentives for DA's pursuing BS cases no matter how politically motivated they are. They do themselves reputational and career harm by chasing weak cases, and if somehow they get a conviction in a manner that's improper that case will get turned over on appeal.

I still fail to see why the answer should be "don't pursue charges against politicians even when there's evidence, simply because they're politicians."
Reply Quote
2
ncsupack1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civilized • 5:16p, 5/31/24
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:

I never said Biden, I'm talking about future presidents. If given enough power and a favorable DA, Republicans will try to get what they see has their pound of flesh. You say y'all, find a post that I posted that Trump shouldn't be charged.

A favorable DA and lots of evidence.

Trump just lost the legally weakest case against him. The three cases left have even more evidence than this one did. There is a boatload of evidence that he committed crimes.

So yeah, if a favorable DA has political motivations to chase a case for which he has boatloads of evidence in the future, he should definitely do that.

Why does anyone think otherwise?

Why should we not pursue cases against people who commit crimes just because they're politicians?
What I'm saying is this long term isn't going to bond well our country. If you don't think that the Pubs aren't going to go out and try to take down a Dem president or one running, I can't help you. For me this isn't Biden or Trump. One other thing, the left will be doing the same thing Trump's supporters are right now. No matter how the evidence looks. This whole thing from the start was short sided. In fact, this could put Trump in the White House.

I hear you man.

I just don't care if a criminal politician gets taken down and I don't care if DA's pursue charges for which they have good evidence.

And I definitely won't be whining like some people on here (not you) are about whatever rad-lib politician it is being a victim.

The justice system is well-equipped to weigh evidence of white collar crimes and try those cases fairly against savvy, well-resourced, well-represented defendants.

If DA's pursue completely frivolous charges, they'll get thrown out (no harm done). If they pursue a weak case, they'll lose (and harm their reputation if they do this enough times) (no harm done).

If they pursue a strong case, well that's their job so that's also fine. If DA's or judges misbehave, the case will get overturned on appeal.

The market for frivolous cases corrects itself because there are disincentives for DA's pursuing BS cases no matter how politically motivated they are. They do themselves reputational and career harm by chasing weak cases, and if somehow they get a conviction in a manner that's improper that case will get turned over on appeal.

I still fail to see why the answer should be "don't pursue charges against politicians even when there's evidence, simply because they're politicians."
Fair point.
Reply Quote
1 edit
caryking
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civilized • 6:04p, 5/31/24
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:

I never said Biden, I'm talking about future presidents. If given enough power and a favorable DA, Republicans will try to get what they see has their pound of flesh. You say y'all, find a post that I posted that Trump shouldn't be charged.

A favorable DA and lots of evidence.

Trump just lost the legally weakest case against him. The three cases left have even more evidence than this one did. There is a boatload of evidence that he committed crimes.

So yeah, if a favorable DA has political motivations to chase a case for which he has boatloads of evidence in the future, he should definitely do that.

Why does anyone think otherwise?

Why should we not pursue cases against people who commit crimes just because they're politicians?
What I'm saying is this long term isn't going to bond well our country. If you don't think that the Pubs aren't going to go out and try to take down a Dem president or one running, I can't help you. For me this isn't Biden or Trump. One other thing, the left will be doing the same thing Trump's supporters are right now. No matter how the evidence looks. This whole thing from the start was short sided. In fact, this could put Trump in the White House.

I hear you man.

I just don't care if a criminal politician gets taken down and I don't care if DA's pursue charges for which they have good evidence.

And I definitely won't be whining like some people on here (not you) are about whatever rad-lib politician it is being a victim.

The justice system is well-equipped to weigh evidence of white collar crimes and try those cases fairly against savvy, well-resourced, well-represented defendants.

If DA's pursue completely frivolous charges, they'll get thrown out (no harm done). If they pursue a weak case, they'll lose (and harm their reputation if they do this enough times) (no harm done).

If they pursue a strong case, well that's their job so that's also fine. If DA's or judges misbehave, the case will get overturned on appeal.

The market for frivolous cases corrects itself because there are disincentives for DA's pursuing BS cases no matter how politically motivated they are. They do themselves reputational and career harm by chasing weak cases, and if somehow they get a conviction in a manner that's improper that case will get turned over on appeal.

I still fail to see why the answer should be "don't pursue charges against politicians even when there's evidence, simply because they're politicians."
Megan Kelley, far from a Trump fan, said today that this just crossed the line. She is now calling on retribution, in a big way!!

Truth is… Pubs in congress are piss poor! Again, Jim Jordan sends another letter asking for answers…. The House has the ability to surgically defund parts of the Federal Government. They are too weak to do that!

Devin Nunez, along with Kash Patel, got these people to respond to documents by threatening their purse. It's all you have to do! Be strong, stop their madness and hopefully this settles down. If it doesn't, find Pub District DA's around the country to start the indictments. Any indictment gets this moving. Load them up with indictments and push the envelope everywhere and as often as possible.

This type of lawfare has gone too far! The only way to stop it and normalize things is to work harder than the Dems. Nobody truly wants this; however, it has to stop! Fight fire with fire!!!
Reply Quote
3
WolfpackUSC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to caryking • 6:30p, 5/31/24
caryking said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:

I never said Biden, I'm talking about future presidents. If given enough power and a favorable DA, Republicans will try to get what they see has their pound of flesh. You say y'all, find a post that I posted that Trump shouldn't be charged.

A favorable DA and lots of evidence.

Trump just lost the legally weakest case against him. The three cases left have even more evidence than this one did. There is a boatload of evidence that he committed crimes.

So yeah, if a favorable DA has political motivations to chase a case for which he has boatloads of evidence in the future, he should definitely do that.

Why does anyone think otherwise?

Why should we not pursue cases against people who commit crimes just because they're politicians?
What I'm saying is this long term isn't going to bond well our country. If you don't think that the Pubs aren't going to go out and try to take down a Dem president or one running, I can't help you. For me this isn't Biden or Trump. One other thing, the left will be doing the same thing Trump's supporters are right now. No matter how the evidence looks. This whole thing from the start was short sided. In fact, this could put Trump in the White House.

I hear you man.

I just don't care if a criminal politician gets taken down and I don't care if DA's pursue charges for which they have good evidence.

And I definitely won't be whining like some people on here (not you) are about whatever rad-lib politician it is being a victim.

The justice system is well-equipped to weigh evidence of white collar crimes and try those cases fairly against savvy, well-resourced, well-represented defendants.

If DA's pursue completely frivolous charges, they'll get thrown out (no harm done). If they pursue a weak case, they'll lose (and harm their reputation if they do this enough times) (no harm done).

If they pursue a strong case, well that's their job so that's also fine. If DA's or judges misbehave, the case will get overturned on appeal.

The market for frivolous cases corrects itself because there are disincentives for DA's pursuing BS cases no matter how politically motivated they are. They do themselves reputational and career harm by chasing weak cases, and if somehow they get a conviction in a manner that's improper that case will get turned over on appeal.

I still fail to see why the answer should be "don't pursue charges against politicians even when there's evidence, simply because they're politicians."
Megan Kelley, far from a Trump fan, said today that this just crossed the line. She is now calling on retribution, in a big way!!

Truth is… Pubs in congress are piss poor! Again, Jim Jordan sends another letter asking for answers…. The House has the ability to surgically defund parts of the Federal Government. They are too weak to do that!

Devin Nunez, along with Kash Patel, got these people to respond to documents by threatening their purse. It's all you have to do! Be strong, stop their madness and hopefully this settles down. If it doesn't, find Pub District DA's around the country to start the indictments. Any indictment gets this moving. Load them up with indictments and push the envelope everywhere and as often as possible.

This type of lawfare has gone too far! The only way to stop it and normalize things is to work harder than the Dems. Nobody truly wants this; however, it has to stop! Fight fire with fire!!!


Have a beer Mr King
Reply Quote
1
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to caryking • 7:24p, 5/31/24
Cary, we've got this. What's coming will stun the world.........and the election won't happen in November.

Easily winning now, "going away". The issue is that our voting system may not yet be tightened adequately. The real polls are 75-25ish. This 55-45 BS we hear is simply more fake news.

Also, Sieve has always been a civil dude much like you. I think you waste your time with him and this is why. How can Sieve not be - in the least- embarrassed with such a mockery of justice? This illustrates why you waste your time debating him. He cannot remotely understand how such injustice equates to us all ......even liberals. Tyranny has few allies.....unless you happen to be in that inner of inner circles........is it the circle of 10 million, or does it become the circle of 1 million or even 10,000? Tyranny- in the end - has no boundaries, yet #daSieve hasn't a clue.
Reply Quote
3 edits
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:51p, 5/31/24
#Sieve, what's that word #boomerang mean?

Reply Quote
SmaptyWolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Werewolf • 7:51p, 5/31/24
Werewolf said:
Cary, we've got this. What's coming will stun the world.........and the election won't happen in November.

Easily winning now, "going away". The issue is that our voting system may not yet be tightened adequately. The real polls are 75-25ish. This 55-45 BS we hear is simply more fake news.

Also, Sieve has always been a civil dude much like you. I think you waste your time with him and this is why. How can Sieve not be - in the least- embarrassed with such a mockery of justice? This illustrates why you waste your time debating him. He cannot remotely understand how such injustice equates to us all ......even liberals. Tyranny has few allies.....unless you happen to be in that inner of inner circles........is it the circle of 10 million, or does it become the circle of 1 million or even 10,000? Tyranny- in the end - has no boundaries, yet #daSieve hasn't a clue.

Reply Quote
3
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:54p, 5/31/24
What a damn coincidence!! ;-)
Reply Quote
Oldsouljer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to caryking • 8:09p, 5/31/24
caryking said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:

I never said Biden, I'm talking about future presidents. If given enough power and a favorable DA, Republicans will try to get what they see has their pound of flesh. You say y'all, find a post that I posted that Trump shouldn't be charged.

A favorable DA and lots of evidence.

Trump just lost the legally weakest case against him. The three cases left have even more evidence than this one did. There is a boatload of evidence that he committed crimes.

So yeah, if a favorable DA has political motivations to chase a case for which he has boatloads of evidence in the future, he should definitely do that.

Why does anyone think otherwise?

Why should we not pursue cases against people who commit crimes just because they're politicians?
What I'm saying is this long term isn't going to bond well our country. If you don't think that the Pubs aren't going to go out and try to take down a Dem president or one running, I can't help you. For me this isn't Biden or Trump. One other thing, the left will be doing the same thing Trump's supporters are right now. No matter how the evidence looks. This whole thing from the start was short sided. In fact, this could put Trump in the White House.

I hear you man.

I just don't care if a criminal politician gets taken down and I don't care if DA's pursue charges for which they have good evidence.

And I definitely won't be whining like some people on here (not you) are about whatever rad-lib politician it is being a victim.

The justice system is well-equipped to weigh evidence of white collar crimes and try those cases fairly against savvy, well-resourced, well-represented defendants.

If DA's pursue completely frivolous charges, they'll get thrown out (no harm done). If they pursue a weak case, they'll lose (and harm their reputation if they do this enough times) (no harm done).

If they pursue a strong case, well that's their job so that's also fine. If DA's or judges misbehave, the case will get overturned on appeal.

The market for frivolous cases corrects itself because there are disincentives for DA's pursuing BS cases no matter how politically motivated they are. They do themselves reputational and career harm by chasing weak cases, and if somehow they get a conviction in a manner that's improper that case will get turned over on appeal.

I still fail to see why the answer should be "don't pursue charges against politicians even when there's evidence, simply because they're politicians."
Megan Kelley, far from a Trump fan, said today that this just crossed the line. She is now calling on retribution, in a big way!!

Truth is… Pubs in congress are piss poor! Again, Jim Jordan sends another letter asking for answers…. The House has the ability to surgically defund parts of the Federal Government. They are too weak to do that!

Devin Nunez, along with Kash Patel, got these people to respond to documents by threatening their purse. It's all you have to do! Be strong, stop their madness and hopefully this settles down. If it doesn't, find Pub District DA's around the country to start the indictments. Any indictment gets this moving. Load them up with indictments and push the envelope everywhere and as often as possible.

This type of lawfare has gone too far! The only way to stop it and normalize things is to work harder than the Dems. Nobody truly wants this; however, it has to stop! Fight fire with fire!!!
Perhaps the best yardstick for determining that it's gone too far is that this travesty of a trial has people who don't particularly like Trump scared to not vote for him. The realization has set in that our constitutional rights mean nothing to the Dems and we're going into a dark place if this isn't stopped now.
Reply Quote
5
dogplasma
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:17p, 5/31/24
I haven't even attempted to follow the details of this thing. Trump was indicted by a grand jury that believed there was good enough evidence to do so. A trial jury picked by both sides unanimously found him guilty in less than two days based on that evidence. If it was "rigged", well, we've got an appeals process.

No, I'm definitely no Trump supporter. it's less about his politics and more about how he treats people. Knowing he screwed over small businesses and contractors for decades, this conviction seems like a bit of retribution by proxy. Do I think this conviction moves the political needle any? Of course not.
Reply Quote
4
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dogplasma • 8:28p, 5/31/24
You should educate yourself about the details so you can see how wrong you are.

It's literally not AT ALL about how he treats people or "by proxy" nonsense. That's a STUPID justification for saying you're fine with a lynch mob/kangaroo court.

I continue to be amazed how accepting of this people are simply because they have TDS.

It's a mental illness.
Reply Quote
5
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldsouljer • 8:29p, 5/31/24
Oldsouljer said:
caryking said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:

I never said Biden, I'm talking about future presidents. If given enough power and a favorable DA, Republicans will try to get what they see has their pound of flesh. You say y'all, find a post that I posted that Trump shouldn't be charged.

A favorable DA and lots of evidence.

Trump just lost the legally weakest case against him. The three cases left have even more evidence than this one did. There is a boatload of evidence that he committed crimes.

So yeah, if a favorable DA has political motivations to chase a case for which he has boatloads of evidence in the future, he should definitely do that.

Why does anyone think otherwise?

Why should we not pursue cases against people who commit crimes just because they're politicians?
What I'm saying is this long term isn't going to bond well our country. If you don't think that the Pubs aren't going to go out and try to take down a Dem president or one running, I can't help you. For me this isn't Biden or Trump. One other thing, the left will be doing the same thing Trump's supporters are right now. No matter how the evidence looks. This whole thing from the start was short sided. In fact, this could put Trump in the White House.

I hear you man.

I just don't care if a criminal politician gets taken down and I don't care if DA's pursue charges for which they have good evidence.

And I definitely won't be whining like some people on here (not you) are about whatever rad-lib politician it is being a victim.

The justice system is well-equipped to weigh evidence of white collar crimes and try those cases fairly against savvy, well-resourced, well-represented defendants.

If DA's pursue completely frivolous charges, they'll get thrown out (no harm done). If they pursue a weak case, they'll lose (and harm their reputation if they do this enough times) (no harm done).

If they pursue a strong case, well that's their job so that's also fine. If DA's or judges misbehave, the case will get overturned on appeal.

The market for frivolous cases corrects itself because there are disincentives for DA's pursuing BS cases no matter how politically motivated they are. They do themselves reputational and career harm by chasing weak cases, and if somehow they get a conviction in a manner that's improper that case will get turned over on appeal.

I still fail to see why the answer should be "don't pursue charges against politicians even when there's evidence, simply because they're politicians."
Megan Kelley, far from a Trump fan, said today that this just crossed the line. She is now calling on retribution, in a big way!!

Truth is… Pubs in congress are piss poor! Again, Jim Jordan sends another letter asking for answers…. The House has the ability to surgically defund parts of the Federal Government. They are too weak to do that!

Devin Nunez, along with Kash Patel, got these people to respond to documents by threatening their purse. It's all you have to do! Be strong, stop their madness and hopefully this settles down. If it doesn't, find Pub District DA's around the country to start the indictments. Any indictment gets this moving. Load them up with indictments and push the envelope everywhere and as often as possible.

This type of lawfare has gone too far! The only way to stop it and normalize things is to work harder than the Dems. Nobody truly wants this; however, it has to stop! Fight fire with fire!!!
Perhaps the best yardstick for determining that it's gone too far is that this travesty of a trial has people who don't particularly like Trump scared to not vote for him. The realization has set in that our constitutional rights mean nothing to the Dems and we're going into a dark place if this isn't stopped now.


Spot on.
Reply Quote
5
packofwolves
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dogplasma • 8:39p, 5/31/24
dogplasma said:
I haven't even attempted to follow the details of this thing. Trump was indicted by a grand jury that believed there was good enough evidence to do so. A trial jury picked by both sides unanimously found him guilty in less than two days based on that evidence. If it was "rigged", well, we've got an appeals process.

No, I'm definitely no Trump supporter. it's less about his politics and more about how he treats people. Knowing he screwed over small businesses and contractors for decades, this conviction seems like a bit of retribution by proxy. Do I think this conviction moves the political needle any? Of course not.


If you haven't followed in detail, then how do you know there was sufficient evidence? Assume you don't know the lead prosecutor was sent down from the DOJ, that the prosecutors did not provide the underlying felony charge to the defense team, tried a federal crime (the DOJ and FEC said wasn't a crime) in a NY state court and did not provide their witness list to the defense ahead of time. A judge that refused to let the defense team call a key witness from the FEC, overruled most defense objections, allowed testimony irrelevant to the accounting issue, told the defense their closing summary could not mention the laws and told the jurors they could select from a buffet of charges and a unanimous verdict was not required. All of these things and more are posted in this thread, but I assume you didn't bother reading about it.

But you're ok with retribution for things unrelated to this case. Sounds like TDS.
Reply Quote
4
FlossyDFlynt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civilized • 8:40p, 5/31/24
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:
Civilized said:
ncsupack1 said:

I never said Biden, I'm talking about future presidents. If given enough power and a favorable DA, Republicans will try to get what they see has their pound of flesh. You say y'all, find a post that I posted that Trump shouldn't be charged.

A favorable DA and lots of evidence.

Trump just lost the legally weakest case against him. The three cases left have even more evidence than this one did. There is a boatload of evidence that he committed crimes.

So yeah, if a favorable DA has political motivations to chase a case for which he has boatloads of evidence in the future, he should definitely do that.

Why does anyone think otherwise?

Why should we not pursue cases against people who commit crimes just because they're politicians?
What I'm saying is this long term isn't going to bond well our country. If you don't think that the Pubs aren't going to go out and try to take down a Dem president or one running, I can't help you. For me this isn't Biden or Trump. One other thing, the left will be doing the same thing Trump's supporters are right now. No matter how the evidence looks. This whole thing from the start was short sided. In fact, this could put Trump in the White House.

I hear you man.

I just don't care if a criminal politician gets taken down and I don't care if DA's pursue charges for which they have good evidence.

And I definitely won't be whining like some people on here (not you) are about whatever rad-lib politician it is being a victim.

The justice system is well-equipped to weigh evidence of white collar crimes and try those cases fairly against savvy, well-resourced, well-represented defendants.

If DA's pursue completely frivolous charges, they'll get thrown out (no harm done). If they pursue a weak case, they'll lose (and harm their reputation if they do this enough times) (no harm done).

If they pursue a strong case, well that's their job so that's also fine. If DA's or judges misbehave, the case will get overturned on appeal.

The market for frivolous cases corrects itself because there are disincentives for DA's pursuing BS cases no matter how politically motivated they are. They do themselves reputational and career harm by chasing weak cases, and if somehow they get a conviction in a manner that's improper that case will get turned over on appeal.

I still fail to see why the answer should be "don't pursue charges against politicians even when there's evidence, simply because they're politicians."
I agree with this on principle, but I dont see this situation as described. The bolded is mainly what I disagree with. If you are going to go after a political opponent, especially one that is going to be the nominee for President, you need to have a rock solid case. This one is dubious at best and yet, the charge was convicted. I think everyone knows this will get overturned eventually, just going to depend on how high up the system it goes.

If you think the Pubs wont use the same logic in the future, I am not sure what to tell you. When Schumer nuked the filibuster, McConnell responded by completely overhauling the federal judiciary. The Democrats better hope they win in November otherwise I suspect we will see many cases brought forward, which wont help anyone. Thats what happens when you open Pandora's box
Reply Quote
4
packofwolves
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Werewolf • 9:10p, 5/31/24
Werewolf said:
Cary, we've got this. What's coming will stun the world.........and the election won't happen in November.

Easily winning now, "going away". The issue is that our voting system may not yet be tightened adequately. The real polls are 75-25ish. This 55-45 BS we hear is simply more fake.


Were, in general I don't believe the things you post. This stuff is way out there. But I will say you are all in on the fight.

I might regret asking this …but how exactly will the voting system be tightened up?
Reply Quote
2
packofwolves
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:34p, 5/31/24
Reply Quote
1
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packofwolves • 10:10p, 5/31/24
packofwolves said:
Werewolf said:
Cary, we've got this. What's coming will stun the world.........and the election won't happen in November.

Easily winning now, "going away". The issue is that our voting system may not yet be tightened adequately. The real polls are 75-25ish. This 55-45 BS we hear is simply more fake.


Were, in general I don't believe the things you post. This stuff is way out there. But I will say you are all in on the fight.

I might regret asking this …but how exactly will the voting system be tightened up?
1. No more digital voting, national voting holiday.
2. Photo ID to vote
3. Return to the absentee voting system of 30 yrs ago.....military and others justified, etc.

Votes should be counted and recounted/verified by midnight.
Reply Quote
1
packofwolves
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Werewolf • 10:24p, 5/31/24
Werewolf said:
packofwolves said:
Werewolf said:
Cary, we've got this. What's coming will stun the world.........and the election won't happen in November.

Easily winning now, "going away". The issue is that our voting system may not yet be tightened adequately. The real polls are 75-25ish. This 55-45 BS we hear is simply more fake.


Were, in general I don't believe the things you post. This stuff is way out there. But I will say you are all in on the fight.

I might regret asking this …but how exactly will the voting system be tightened up?
1. No more digital voting, national voting holiday.
2. Photo ID to vote
3. Return to the absentee voting system of 30 yrs ago.....military and others justified, etc.

Votes should be counted and recounted/verified by midnight.


I would be ok with that, but many States won't go along with it. Lawsuits for sure. I don't see it happening. And who would be driving this change?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:31p, 5/31/24
Good job, Democrats.

Reply Quote
3
SmaptyWolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:34p, 5/31/24
FUN FACT! Michael Cohen was convicted and did 13 months in prison for these exact charges back in 2018, FOUR years before Alvin Bragg was elected DA.
Reply Quote
3
3 edits
First Page Last Page
Page 125 of 176 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.