(08-04-2022, 08:49 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2022, 08:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]A simpleton would just believe that people get the sentences they deserve after prosecutors and judges consider all extenuating circumstances.
That's not what I said.
I said that prosecutors use the threat of unreasonably long sentences to speed up the process and steer people to plea bargains. You might note that this is exactly what the convict's wife said happened. Have a look at her comments after the sentencing.
Sometimes I take things that establishment folks say at face value. I understand that can come across as naive. But here I'm literally taking the comments of the insurrectionist's supportive family at face value.
Did I call you a simpleton after you posted that? No. I didn't. I pointed out the flaw in your argument, and you tried to twist it by dodging my point altogether by posting something nonsensical. There is zero possibility that you didn't understand the intent of my response.
Hi Cleatwood. Good to see you contributing nothing to a thread again. Not that it's worth my time to respond to you, but I like Mike. Do you like Ronster? Remember what I typed in that thread?
Quote:I guess I am somewhat hypocritical in this regard, because I do the same thing with Mikesez. The difference is that I think I can move Mikesez.
I totally buy that the prosecutor had a pro-establishment bias. But the prosecutor and the defense team jointly selected the jury. Maybe they were biased too, maybe all 12 of them were, but it's hard to imagine a defense lawyer being that incompetent.
It's not about incompetence. How do you even get an impartial jury? DC is extremely liberal. For the defense attorney, the best you can do is mitigation. They need reconsider how they conduct federal trials, because, like I said before, there is a long track record of criminal behavior going unpunished. And, don't sidestep prosecutorial discretion. That is a HUGE problem.
(08-04-2022, 09:03 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2022, 08:49 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Did I call you a simpleton after you posted that? No. I didn't. I pointed out the flaw in your argument, and you tried to twist it by dodging my point altogether by posting something nonsensical. There is zero possibility that you didn't understand the intent of my response.
Hi Cleatwood. Good to see you contributing nothing to a thread again. Not that it's worth my time to respond to you, but I like Mike. Do you like Ronster? Remember what I typed in that thread?
I totally buy that the prosecutor had a pro-establishment bias. But the prosecutor and the defense team jointly selected the jury. Maybe they were biased too, maybe all 12 of them were, but it's hard to imagine a defense lawyer being that incompetent.
(08-04-2022, 10:29 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It's not about incompetence. How do you even get an impartial jury? DC is extremely liberal. For the defense attorney, the best you can do is mitigation. They need reconsider how they conduct federal trials, because, like I said before, there is a long track record of criminal behavior going unpunished. And, don't sidestep prosecutorial discretion. That is a HUGE problem.
Most of these people have liberal lawyers and there are some that should have their lawyers disbarred over how their case was handled. It's basically 3 against 1 with the judge, prosecutor, and public defender or whoever they could manage to pay and would take the case.
There are harden, violent, repeat offenders that get better representation than most of these people have.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
I wonder how many people were prosecuted for burning the historic church across the street from the Whitehouse. They literally confined the President for fears that the Whitehouse could be overrun, and there was real violence that night. What do we hear from the MSM? Lol@Trump for being a coward. That gets parroted on this board by people who consider themselves intellectuals. That's fine... I can understand those who said people need voices. They have a right to those principles.
Not one mention of insurrectionists or criminals. Did we see a manhunt to gather up all those people? The left and moderates on this board would be SCREAMING about injustices if they indiscriminately rounded up everyone who took part in that event and threw the book at them. Can you imagine the headlines if they were holding BLM protesters in solitary confinement for burning down police buildings. Not only did we not see that kind of "justice," the prominent left literally created funds to bail out actual criminals.
This is a travesty of justice. The moderates and the liberals on this board need to stop being lapdogs of the media and just look at the facts. You should be ashamed the way they are handling this. But you won't be... because you swallow up garbage and spit it back at everyone around you. Trespassing charges. That's it. 15 years for saying some bad things and not even going into the Capitol building and not even having definitive proof he had it on him. Lol. Not only does Mikesez think it's justified, but he also uses it as PROOF there were armed insurrectionists. Get the [BLEEP] out of here.
(08-05-2022, 07:25 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how many people were prosecuted for burning the historic church across the street from the Whitehouse. They literally confined the President for fears that the Whitehouse could be overrun, and there was real violence that night. What do we hear from the MSM? Lol@Trump for being a coward. That gets parroted on this board by people who consider themselves intellectuals. That's fine... I can understand those who said people need voices. They have a right to those principles.
Not one mention of insurrectionists or criminals. Did we see a manhunt to gather up all those people? The left and moderates on this board would be SCREAMING about injustices if they indiscriminately rounded up everyone who took part in that event and threw the book at them. Can you imagine the headlines if they were holding BLM protesters in solitary confinement for burning down police buildings. Not only did we not see that kind of "justice," the prominent left literally created funds to bail out actual criminals.
This is a travesty of justice. The moderates and the liberals on this board need to stop being lapdogs of the media and just look at the facts. You should be ashamed the way they are handling this. But you won't be... because you swallow up garbage and spit it back at everyone around you. Trespassing charges. That's it. 15 years for saying some bad things and not even going into the Capitol building and not even having definitive proof he had it on him. Lol. Not only does Mikesez think it's justified, but he also uses it as PROOF there were armed insurrectionists. Get the [BLEEP] out of here.
You're asking why I make a bigger deal about the protestors on Jan 6 2021 than I do about the protestors on June 1 2020. It's certainly true that the second event continues to get much more discussion in the media, but certainly some of the protestors from June 1 are being prosecuted, if they were caught.
Anyhow, there is a very important and totally non-partisan reason for the disparity. The June 1 protestors threatened the White House. Worst case, they could have killed the President if they were much more numerous and much more determined. That would have been bad, but our Constitution has survived the death of the President many times now. The Constitution has clear procedure about what to do in that case. It does not have clear procedure about what to do when large numbers of members of Congress are killed, or who gets to wield Congress' power when civil unrest prevents Congress from meeting.
It's too bad mental gymnastics isn't a sport. You'd win gold.
(08-05-2022, 10:52 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It's too bad mental gymnastics isn't a sport. You'd win gold.
Don't sell yourself short. It takes a lot of dexterity to dodge the point the way you do.
(08-05-2022, 11:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2022, 10:52 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It's too bad mental gymnastics isn't a sport. You'd win gold.
Don't sell yourself short. It takes a lot of dexterity to dodge the point the way you do.
What am I dodging? Your stupid justification for why they are punishing one group much more severely than the other? That's really what's going on in the DA's mind? "Well, I mean, we should probably apply justice equally, but, I mean... if they killed the President, the constitution has an explanation of how to proceed, so let's just bring the hammer down on one of these groups." Lol, get real.
Thanks for the bump, Americus. Forgot to post that follow up.
(08-05-2022, 09:21 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2022, 11:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Don't sell yourself short. It takes a lot of dexterity to dodge the point the way you do.
What am I dodging? Your stupid justification for why they are punishing one group much more severely than the other? That's really what's going on in the DA's mind? "Well, I mean, we should probably apply justice equally, but, I mean... if they killed the President, the constitution has an explanation of how to proceed, so let's just bring the hammer down on one of these groups." Lol, get real.
Thanks for the bump, Americus. Forgot to post that follow up.
No problem. You said it better than I was going to.
Rationalizing the assassination of a POTUS to make a point is mind boggling.
(08-05-2022, 09:39 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2022, 09:21 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]What am I dodging? Your stupid justification for why they are punishing one group much more severely than the other? That's really what's going on in the DA's mind? "Well, I mean, we should probably apply justice equally, but, I mean... if they killed the President, the constitution has an explanation of how to proceed, so let's just bring the hammer down on one of these groups." Lol, get real.
Thanks for the bump, Americus. Forgot to post that follow up.
No problem. You said it better than I was going to.
Rationalizing the assassination of a POTUS to make a point is mind boggling.
Yet perfectly reasonable to some. Truly it is mind boggling.
(08-04-2022, 08:16 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Dear Anonymous Mod Overlord,
I completely understand why you would give me a warning for calling Mikesez a simpleton and deleting that post. I would like to humbly apologize, even though I am having a hard time understanding how he could reduce the complexity of my argument to one factor. Maybe you could explain to me how he tries to take the whole of our justice system, especially this thing called prosecutorial discretion, and reduce it to the jury pool. I mean, it's not like there's a GIANT track record of trials taking place in DC being favorable towards the establishment. It's almost like there is this bias that affects the outcome, but I digress. Either he has a fundamentally oversimplified view of how people are brought to trial and how sentences are recommended, or he's being disingenuous. I mean, I'd hate to call the guy a liar? Do we get warnings for that, too?
Again, I beg you.... please accept my humble apology. He isn't a simpleton. He's simply wrong about a ton of stuff... I don't know what that would make him, though. I'm sure there's a word for it.
Take that warning off my account. He knows what he's doing. There are moderators here who do way worse on the regular.
Don't get whiny. The warning will expire before too long.
(08-05-2022, 09:21 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2022, 11:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Don't sell yourself short. It takes a lot of dexterity to dodge the point the way you do.
What am I dodging? Your stupid justification for why they are punishing one group much more severely than the other? That's really what's going on in the DA's mind? "Well, I mean, we should probably apply justice equally, but, I mean... if they killed the President, the constitution has an explanation of how to proceed, so let's just bring the hammer down on one of these groups." Lol, get real.
Thanks for the bump, Americus. Forgot to post that follow up.
I'm only talking about why the media is making a bigger deal of one over the other. And why you should care more about the one than the other. I have no idea if the justice system is treating them differently, or not. I have no idea what crimes may have been committed on June 1 2020 near the White House, other than arson.
This isn't a partisan point. Hear this clearly. Someone could assassinate President Biden tomorrow, and it still wouldn't be as big of a threat to peace and stability and prosperity as what Trump tried to do on January 6.
LOL. Oh. My. Hell. Peace and stability and prosperity?
The same media you're talking about making a bigger deal of one event over the other would go bat crap nuclear if Biden was assassinated. They would blame every single white conservative male- automatically. Especially if they carry or own firearms, have any ties to the NRA, have ever looked up something about militias out of curiosity, voted for Trump, etc. They would spew so much hate, discontent, rhetoric and misinformation that would make this whole Jan 6 circus look amateur.
Don't underestimate the will of the media machine. They can prop up and/or destroy whoever they want and the scary thing is they're not hiding it anymore. Guess what that does? Gets people fired up about stuff. It makes them divisive. They start looking for confirmation bias and echo chambers. That leads to all kinds of crazy.
(08-02-2022, 03:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2022, 02:56 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]You've also insisted every person there was violent yet when a man was found to not have done the violence he was charged with you agreed that he wasn't violent and shouldn't have been convicted or even arrested. Forgive us if we aren't able to keep us with your double speak.
I do forgive you. Breaking down a barrier is against the law. Walking through a barrier that was already broken down is inadvisable but not criminal FALSE . Everyone who went in that day was intent on re-installing Trump and following his orders. DO YOU ANY PROOF OF THIS CLAIM BEYOND YOUR OWN PSYCHIC POWERS? They showed up when he said to, fought like hell when he said to, then left when he said to. So all of them were committing violence against the constitution. But not all of them were breaking the law, as I said. LOL, WHAT ACT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A CRIME?
(08-05-2022, 09:21 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2022, 11:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Don't sell yourself short. It takes a lot of dexterity to dodge the point the way you do.
What am I dodging? Your stupid justification for why they are punishing one group much more severely than the other? That's really what's going on in the DA's mind? "Well, I mean, we should probably apply justice equally, but, I mean... if they killed the President, the constitution has an explanation of how to proceed, so let's just bring the hammer down on one of these groups." Lol, get real.
Thanks for the bump, Americus. Forgot to post that follow up.
Mikey loves the government with all of his little heart… He refuses to acknowledge that this country has a two tier justice system where Democrats can do no wrong and get away with everything. Anyone paying attention knows this. He is being disingenuous at best, but I believe it is purposeful; he’s a liberal pretending to be moderate.
(08-05-2022, 11:12 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2022, 03:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I do forgive you. Breaking down a barrier is against the law. Walking through a barrier that was already broken down is inadvisable but not criminal FALSE . Everyone who went in that day was intent on re-installing Trump and following his orders. DO YOU ANY PROOF OF THIS CLAIM BEYOND YOUR OWN PSYCHIC POWERS? They showed up when he said to, fought like hell when he said to, then left when he said to. So all of them were committing violence against the constitution. But not all of them were breaking the law, as I said. LOL, WHAT ACT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A CRIME?
Claiming that an election was stolen when it wasn't is violence against the US constitution.
Speech that says we should stop having a constitution, that the president, congress and courts are no longer legitimate, is permissible per the 1st amendment, of course. But it is still against the constitution.
(08-05-2022, 09:57 PM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2022, 08:16 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Dear Anonymous Mod Overlord,
I completely understand why you would give me a warning for calling Mikesez a simpleton and deleting that post. I would like to humbly apologize, even though I am having a hard time understanding how he could reduce the complexity of my argument to one factor. Maybe you could explain to me how he tries to take the whole of our justice system, especially this thing called prosecutorial discretion, and reduce it to the jury pool. I mean, it's not like there's a GIANT track record of trials taking place in DC being favorable towards the establishment. It's almost like there is this bias that affects the outcome, but I digress. Either he has a fundamentally oversimplified view of how people are brought to trial and how sentences are recommended, or he's being disingenuous. I mean, I'd hate to call the guy a liar? Do we get warnings for that, too?
Again, I beg you.... please accept my humble apology. He isn't a simpleton. He's simply wrong about a ton of stuff... I don't know what that would make him, though. I'm sure there's a word for it.
Take that warning off my account. He knows what he's doing. There are moderators here who do way worse on the regular.
Don't get whiny. The warning will expire before too long.
That was sarcasm, bro. I don't care what you do. Simpleton is to don't be simple as whiner is to don't get whiny. If all you need me to do is add three words, I'll keep that in mind for future reference. I think we're really going places with these high standards.
(08-06-2022, 08:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Claiming that an election was stolen when it wasn't is violence against the US constitution.
Speech that says we should stop having a constitution, that the president, congress and courts are no longer legitimate, is permissible per the 1st amendment, of course. But it is still against the constitution.
More words are violence nonsense. Are people who want to ban ARs being violent against the constitution, too?
(08-06-2022, 10:13 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (08-05-2022, 09:57 PM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get whiny. The warning will expire before too long.
That was sarcasm, bro. I don't care what you do. Simpleton is to don't be simple as whiner is to don't get whiny. If all you need me to do is add three words, I'll keep that in mind for future reference. I think we're really going places with these high standards.
(08-06-2022, 08:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Claiming that an election was stolen when it wasn't is violence against the US constitution.
Speech that says we should stop having a constitution, that the president, congress and courts are no longer legitimate, is permissible per the 1st amendment, of course. But it is still against the constitution.
More words are violence nonsense. Are people who want to ban ARs being violent against the constitution, too?
Words aren't really violence when spoken against people. But the constitution is not people. The constitution is words. Words can be violent towards other words. It's kinda how religion and law work.
If someone claims that the government can take all guns from everyone without first amending the constitution, yes, those words are violence against the constitution. Those would be words saying that the Constitution doesn't matter and can be disregarded.
What a laugh, a liberal using the constitution defensively while on the other side of his mouth making a mockery of it while advocating its destruction.