(08-27-2023, 07:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 07:08 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Mike, you were pounding the rails of how much you disliked Trump years before Jan 6. Stop pretending this is all about Jan 6.
I was vehemently against Trump from the beginning, yes.
It's because I believe character is destiny.
I knew his character was bad.
I knew the longer he stayed in office, the sooner something like Jan 6 would happen.
How about Biden’s character?
(08-27-2023, 07:36 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 07:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I was vehemently against Trump from the beginning, yes.
It's because I believe character is destiny.
I knew his character was bad.
I knew the longer he stayed in office, the sooner something like Jan 6 would happen.
How about Biden’s character?
Biden is the lesser of two evils in his eyes. Shows you how badly he needs glasses.
(08-27-2023, 07:36 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 07:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I was vehemently against Trump from the beginning, yes.
It's because I believe character is destiny.
I knew his character was bad.
I knew the longer he stayed in office, the sooner something like Jan 6 would happen.
How about Biden’s character?
Divorces: Biden 0, Trump 2
Affairs: Biden 0, Trump at least 2
People who have gone to jail after lying for him: Biden 0, Trump at least 3
Now, you'll say that the prosecutors were biased, but, is that why Trump has more divorces and affairs? Of course not. In my opinion his behavior with the women closest to him predicts his behavior with the workers closest to him. Character is destiny. Much simpler explanation than a bunch of unrelated prosecutors of both parties having it out for the people who work for Trump.
(08-27-2023, 08:26 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 07:36 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]How about Biden’s character?
Divorces: Biden 0, Trump 2
Affairs: Biden 0, Trump at least 2
People who have gone to jail after working for him: Biden 0, Trump at least 3
Now, you'll say that the prosecutors were biased, but, is that why Trump has more divorces and affairs? Of course not. In my opinion his behavior with the women closest to him predicts his behavior with the workers closest to him. Character is destiny. Much simpler explanation than a bunch of unrelated prosecutors of both parties having it out for the people who work for Trump.
You overlooked 1 dead wife. That story is full of holes, if the truck driver's story is true she tried to kill herself and take the kids with her to get away from him. Plus Trump never married the babysitter.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(08-27-2023, 08:26 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 07:36 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]How about Biden’s character?
Divorces: Biden 0, Trump 2
Affairs: Biden 0, Trump at least 2
People who have gone to jail after lying for him: Biden 0, Trump at least 3
Now, you'll say that the prosecutors were biased, but, is that why Trump has more divorces and affairs? Of course not. In my opinion his behavior with the women closest to him predicts his behavior with the workers closest to him. Character is destiny. Much simpler explanation than a bunch of unrelated prosecutors of both parties having it out for the people who work for Trump.
A four-word question and your response states, "Trump" five times. Can't you EVER discuss Biden on his own merits?
(08-27-2023, 09:03 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 08:26 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Divorces: Biden 0, Trump 2
Affairs: Biden 0, Trump at least 2
People who have gone to jail after lying for him: Biden 0, Trump at least 3
Now, you'll say that the prosecutors were biased, but, is that why Trump has more divorces and affairs? Of course not. In my opinion his behavior with the women closest to him predicts his behavior with the workers closest to him. Character is destiny. Much simpler explanation than a bunch of unrelated prosecutors of both parties having it out for the people who work for Trump.
A four-word question and your response states, "Trump" five times. Can't you EVER discuss Biden on his own merits?
Why should I? He doesn't have very many, except for keeping a worse man out of the White House.
(08-27-2023, 08:35 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 08:26 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Divorces: Biden 0, Trump 2
Affairs: Biden 0, Trump at least 2
People who have gone to jail after working for him: Biden 0, Trump at least 3
Now, you'll say that the prosecutors were biased, but, is that why Trump has more divorces and affairs? Of course not. In my opinion his behavior with the women closest to him predicts his behavior with the workers closest to him. Character is destiny. Much simpler explanation than a bunch of unrelated prosecutors of both parties having it out for the people who work for Trump.
You overlooked 1 dead wife. That story is full of holes, if the truck driver's story is true she tried to kill herself and take the kids with her to get away from him. Plus Trump never married the babysitter.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Everything is one more layer of conspiracy theory for you. Even if she killed herself, Joe didn't make her do it. He wasn't in the car. The "score" would be the same. Even if you counted that as a "divorce" Trump still has one more. Why is this not computing for you?
(08-27-2023, 09:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 09:03 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]A four-word question and your response states, "Trump" five times. Can't you EVER discuss Biden on his own merits?
Why should I? He doesn't have very many, except for keeping a worse man out of the White House.
It could help with your own credibility. You're so consumed by your hatred you can't make an objective argument.
(08-27-2023, 04:21 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 03:17 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Free speech stops being free speech When your blatant lies incite criminal and violent actions from others
It also stops being free speech when you commit 96 counts of criminal actions, directly tied to the lies you are espousing to the public
I know you despise the guy (and he's done plenty to deserve it), but don't you agree those charges are not yet proven and he deserves his day in court?
I support the legal process ( though I expect it will be manipulated to a degree to get him off easy) and of course everyone deserves to have the chance to be fairly judged.
However-
The amount of evidence already available to the public that readily displays his guilt on a dozen different charges at the state and federal levels is pretty irrefutable.
(08-27-2023, 09:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 08:35 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]You overlooked 1 dead wife. That story is full of holes, if the truck driver's story is true she tried to kill herself and take the kids with her to get away from him. Plus Trump never married the babysitter.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Everything is one more layer of conspiracy theory for you. Even if she killed herself, Joe didn't make her do it. He wasn't in the car. The "score" would be the same. Even if you counted that as a "divorce" Trump still has one more. Why is this not computing for you?
It's not really a conspiracy, it's just that the cops didn't investigate it, and Biden has lied about the truck driver being drunk his whole life. She pulled out in front of the truck from a stop.
The conspiracy is that another car was involved from behind or that she couldn't take Biden molesting the kids once her daughter was born. Those have no basis in facts and are just people making stuff.
Driving your wife to kill herself and trying to take the kids with her is worse than getting a divorce.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(08-28-2023, 02:46 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 09:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Everything is one more layer of conspiracy theory for you. Even if she killed herself, Joe didn't make her do it. He wasn't in the car. The "score" would be the same. Even if you counted that as a "divorce" Trump still has one more. Why is this not computing for you?
It's not really a conspiracy, it's just that the cops didn't investigate it, and Biden has lied about the truck driver being drunk his whole life. She pulled out in front of the truck from a stop.
The conspiracy is that another car was involved from behind or that she couldn't take Biden molesting the kids once her daughter was born. Those have no basis in facts and are just people making stuff.
Driving your wife to kill herself and trying to take the kids with her is worse than getting a divorce.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Or, she wasn’t paying attention and pulled in front of the truck.
Twisting a tragedy into political fodder and a personal attack is as low as it gets. It doesn’t deserve mentioning.
(08-27-2023, 11:17 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 04:21 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]I know you despise the guy (and he's done plenty to deserve it), but don't you agree those charges are not yet proven and he deserves his day in court?
I support the legal process ( though I expect it will be manipulated to a degree to get him off easy) and of course everyone deserves to have the chance to be fairly judged.
However-
The amount of evidence already available to the public that readily displays his guilt on a dozen different charges at the state and federal levels is pretty irrefutable.
Where can one find this publicly available "evidence" proving guilt (presumably beyond a reasonable doubt)?
(08-28-2023, 05:28 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2023, 02:46 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]It's not really a conspiracy, it's just that the cops didn't investigate it, and Biden has lied about the truck driver being drunk his whole life. She pulled out in front of the truck from a stop.
The conspiracy is that another car was involved from behind or that she couldn't take Biden molesting the kids once her daughter was born. Those have no basis in facts and are just people making stuff.
Driving your wife to kill herself and trying to take the kids with her is worse than getting a divorce.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Or, she wasn’t paying attention and pulled in front of the truck.
Twisting a tragedy into political fodder and a personal attack is as low as it gets. It doesn’t deserve mentioning.
Tremendous respect for this post.
(08-28-2023, 07:53 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-27-2023, 11:17 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I support the legal process ( though I expect it will be manipulated to a degree to get him off easy) and of course everyone deserves to have the chance to be fairly judged.
However-
The amount of evidence already available to the public that readily displays his guilt on a dozen different charges at the state and federal levels is pretty irrefutable.
Where can one find this publicly available "evidence" proving guilt (presumably beyond a reasonable doubt)?
Hard to take this seriously, but...
You can start with the call to the GA SoS Raffensberger. Trump had already been notified by DOJ officials that his claims about GA election results were bull [BLEEP]. - But he made the call anyway and pressured the official to "find" him 11000 votes. A number of key phrases he used in the call can easily be ruled criminal on their own, but along with the evidence gathered in that case that shows the Trump campaign offering MONEY to "speed up" the mail in ballot counts (that they 100% KNEW they'd lose in) and you've got multiple charges easily justified.
They were not offering money to speed anything, they were trying to bribe an official. The mail in votes uncounted were from a primarily black county and Trump had literally spent MILLIONS of dollars telling his base not to vote by mail. Those uncounted votes were going to be a landslide for Biden, and they knew it, and the memos submitted into evidence prove this as well.
Just one little quote from Trump's ridiculous begging call to Raffensberger:
Trump said: "There's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, you've recalculated ... even if you cut them in half, cut them in half and cut them in half again, it's more votes than we need."
The false electors scheme is already seeing indictments and more incoming indictments in multiple states.
The GA and Fed cases are going to easily show that Trump and his lawyers are tied to this. Memos, emails, and texts have all been released tying them together as conspirators. He's not getting out of that cockamamy garbage.
He tried to convince multiple states and the VP to commit fraud on his behalf. If you haven't seen the evidence being plastered all over the internet you are living under a rock.
(08-28-2023, 08:30 AM)Khan Artist Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2023, 05:28 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Or, she wasn’t paying attention and pulled in front of the truck.
Twisting a tragedy into political fodder and a personal attack is as low as it gets. It doesn’t deserve mentioning.
Tremendous respect for this post.
It’s appreciated but no respect is necessary. Common decency is a diminished quality in these divisive times. If more people would keep that in mind the temperature might come down a bit. Some things should remain unspoken in the arena of debate.
I’m not calling out p_rushing. However, that sort of talk needs to remain in the dregs of dark internet chat rooms where it belongs.
(08-28-2023, 09:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2023, 07:53 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Where can one find this publicly available "evidence" proving guilt (presumably beyond a reasonable doubt)?
Hard to take this seriously, but...
You can start with the call to the GA SoS Raffensberger. Trump had already been notified by DOJ officials that his claims about GA election results were bull [BLEEP]. - But he made the call anyway and pressured the official to "find" him 11000 votes. A number of key phrases he used in the call can easily be ruled criminal on their own, but along with the evidence gathered in that case that shows the Trump campaign offering MONEY to "speed up" the mail in ballot counts (that they 100% KNEW they'd lose in) and you've got multiple charges easily justified.
They were not offering money to speed anything, they were trying to bribe an official. The mail in votes uncounted were from a primarily black county and Trump had literally spent MILLIONS of dollars telling his base not to vote by mail. Those uncounted votes were going to be a landslide for Biden, and they knew it, and the memos submitted into evidence prove this as well.
Just one little quote from Trump's ridiculous begging call to Raffensberger:
Trump said: "There's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, you've recalculated ... even if you cut them in half, cut them in half and cut them in half again, it's more votes than we need."
The false electors scheme is already seeing indictments and more incoming indictments in multiple states.
The GA and Fed cases are going to easily show that Trump and his lawyers are tied to this. Memos, emails, and texts have all been released tying them together as conspirators. He's not getting out of that cockamamy garbage.
He tried to convince multiple states and the VP to commit fraud on his behalf. If you haven't seen the evidence being plastered all over the internet you are living under a rock.
You can't find something that doesn't exist, you can only find something that's lost or misplaced.
"Speed up"? Where's the crime in speeding up a process? Was he offering financial assistance to pay for extra workers and/or overtime?
Bribing an official is your interpretation of vague comments. Maybe it's true, but that's far from proven and it's going to take language far more specific than any presented thus far to prove intent.
There is nothing in the definition of the word "recalculating" to suggest fraud. Quite the opposite, it suggests verifying previous results to ensure accuracy.
I'm more than a little skeptical of what I see on the internet, especially when I know how politically charged/driven it is. Snippets of conversation, especially when presented without context are just that. Allegations are not evidence and indictments are simply a step in the legal process leading to a trial, where the actual evidence is presented.
I don't care for the guy, and I wish he would just disappear, but I'll wait for the trial before I convict him in the court of public opinion.
(08-28-2023, 10:29 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2023, 09:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Hard to take this seriously, but...
You can start with the call to the GA SoS Raffensberger. Trump had already been notified by DOJ officials that his claims about GA election results were bull [BLEEP]. - But he made the call anyway and pressured the official to "find" him 11000 votes. A number of key phrases he used in the call can easily be ruled criminal on their own, but along with the evidence gathered in that case that shows the Trump campaign offering MONEY to "speed up" the mail in ballot counts (that they 100% KNEW they'd lose in) and you've got multiple charges easily justified.
They were not offering money to speed anything, they were trying to bribe an official. The mail in votes uncounted were from a primarily black county and Trump had literally spent MILLIONS of dollars telling his base not to vote by mail. Those uncounted votes were going to be a landslide for Biden, and they knew it, and the memos submitted into evidence prove this as well.
Just one little quote from Trump's ridiculous begging call to Raffensberger:
Trump said: "There's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, you've recalculated ... even if you cut them in half, cut them in half and cut them in half again, it's more votes than we need."
The false electors scheme is already seeing indictments and more incoming indictments in multiple states.
The GA and Fed cases are going to easily show that Trump and his lawyers are tied to this. Memos, emails, and texts have all been released tying them together as conspirators. He's not getting out of that cockamamy garbage.
He tried to convince multiple states and the VP to commit fraud on his behalf. If you haven't seen the evidence being plastered all over the internet you are living under a rock.
You can't find something that doesn't exist, you can only find something that's lost or misplaced.
"Speed up"? Where's the crime in speeding up a process? Was he offering financial assistance to pay for extra workers and/or overtime?
Bribing an official is your interpretation of vague comments. Maybe it's true, but that's far from proven and it's going to take language far more specific than any presented thus far to prove intent.
There is nothing in the definition of the word "recalculating" to suggest fraud. Quite the opposite, it suggests verifying previous results to ensure accuracy.
I'm more than a little skeptical of what I see on the internet, especially when I know how politically charged/driven it is. Snippets of conversation, especially when presented without context are just that. Allegations are not evidence and indictments are simply a step in the legal process leading to a trial, where the actual evidence is presented.
I don't care for the guy, and I wish he would just disappear, but I'll wait for the trial before I convict him in the court of public opinion.
You are missing the part where I informed you that Trump KNEW he lost Georgia fair and square. Before the call.
There are records of correspondence from multiple official government entities informing him that the lies he was spreading about it were false. All of his claims about the mishandling of votes/ballots were investigated and proven false. ( the 'suitcases of ballots" FALSE - the '18,000 uncounted' FALSE - it was actually 8.900 - not enough to change the election and they were mostly Biden votes anyway - ALL of those claims were vetted and proven false)
But he STILL made that call on January 2nd - so you must take all of those "vague" comments pressuring the Sec of State within the context of Trump having been informed over and over again that he lost the state straight up before he said all of that wacky garbage to the official. (and offered money under another false pretense)
This important context makes the comments and the offer of funds (bribe) a horse of a different color.
(08-28-2023, 10:29 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2023, 09:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Hard to take this seriously, but...
You can start with the call to the GA SoS Raffensberger. Trump had already been notified by DOJ officials that his claims about GA election results were bull [BLEEP]. - But he made the call anyway and pressured the official to "find" him 11000 votes. A number of key phrases he used in the call can easily be ruled criminal on their own, but along with the evidence gathered in that case that shows the Trump campaign offering MONEY to "speed up" the mail in ballot counts (that they 100% KNEW they'd lose in) and you've got multiple charges easily justified.
They were not offering money to speed anything, they were trying to bribe an official. The mail in votes uncounted were from a primarily black county and Trump had literally spent MILLIONS of dollars telling his base not to vote by mail. Those uncounted votes were going to be a landslide for Biden, and they knew it, and the memos submitted into evidence prove this as well.
Just one little quote from Trump's ridiculous begging call to Raffensberger:
Trump said: "There's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, you've recalculated ... even if you cut them in half, cut them in half and cut them in half again, it's more votes than we need."
The false electors scheme is already seeing indictments and more incoming indictments in multiple states.
The GA and Fed cases are going to easily show that Trump and his lawyers are tied to this. Memos, emails, and texts have all been released tying them together as conspirators. He's not getting out of that cockamamy garbage.
He tried to convince multiple states and the VP to commit fraud on his behalf. If you haven't seen the evidence being plastered all over the internet you are living under a rock.
You can't find something that doesn't exist, you can only find something that's lost or misplaced.
"Speed up"? Where's the crime in speeding up a process? Was he offering financial assistance to pay for extra workers and/or overtime?
Bribing an official is your interpretation of vague comments. Maybe it's true, but that's far from proven and it's going to take language far more specific than any presented thus far to prove intent.
There is nothing in the definition of the word "recalculating" to suggest fraud. Quite the opposite, it suggests verifying previous results to ensure accuracy.
I'm more than a little skeptical of what I see on the internet, especially when I know how politically charged/driven it is. Snippets of conversation, especially when presented without context are just that. Allegations are not evidence and indictments are simply a step in the legal process leading to a trial, where the actual evidence is presented.
I don't care for the guy, and I wish he would just disappear, but I'll wait for the trial before I convict him in the court of public opinion.
The presumption of innocence part and the wait for the trial part are what we do before we put someone in jail. It's a high burden.
But we are not just thinking about putting Trump in jail. We are thinking about returning him to public trust with our votes. We don't have to presume innocence or wait for a trial before making a determination that Trump does not deserve public trust and should not get our votes.
(08-28-2023, 11:26 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2023, 10:29 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]You can't find something that doesn't exist, you can only find something that's lost or misplaced.
"Speed up"? Where's the crime in speeding up a process? Was he offering financial assistance to pay for extra workers and/or overtime?
Bribing an official is your interpretation of vague comments. Maybe it's true, but that's far from proven and it's going to take language far more specific than any presented thus far to prove intent.
There is nothing in the definition of the word "recalculating" to suggest fraud. Quite the opposite, it suggests verifying previous results to ensure accuracy.
I'm more than a little skeptical of what I see on the internet, especially when I know how politically charged/driven it is. Snippets of conversation, especially when presented without context are just that. Allegations are not evidence and indictments are simply a step in the legal process leading to a trial, where the actual evidence is presented.
I don't care for the guy, and I wish he would just disappear, but I'll wait for the trial before I convict him in the court of public opinion.
You are missing the part where I informed you that Trump KNEW he lost Georgia fair and square. Before the call.
There are records of correspondence from multiple official government entities informing him that the lies he was spreading about it were false. All of his claims about the mishandling of votes/ballots were investigated and proven false. ( the 'suitcases of ballots" FALSE - the '18,000 uncounted' FALSE - it was actually 8.900 - not enough to change the election and they were mostly Biden votes anyway - ALL of those claims were vetted and proven false)
But he STILL made that call on January 2nd - so you must take all of those "vague" comments pressuring the Sec of State within the context of Trump having been informed over and over again that he lost the state straight up before he said all of that wacky garbage to the official. (and offered money under another false pretense)
This important context makes the comments and the offer of funds (bribe) a horse of a different color.
Your second claim disproves the first and there's your reasonable doubt.
(08-28-2023, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2023, 10:29 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]You can't find something that doesn't exist, you can only find something that's lost or misplaced.
"Speed up"? Where's the crime in speeding up a process? Was he offering financial assistance to pay for extra workers and/or overtime?
Bribing an official is your interpretation of vague comments. Maybe it's true, but that's far from proven and it's going to take language far more specific than any presented thus far to prove intent.
There is nothing in the definition of the word "recalculating" to suggest fraud. Quite the opposite, it suggests verifying previous results to ensure accuracy.
I'm more than a little skeptical of what I see on the internet, especially when I know how politically charged/driven it is. Snippets of conversation, especially when presented without context are just that. Allegations are not evidence and indictments are simply a step in the legal process leading to a trial, where the actual evidence is presented.
I don't care for the guy, and I wish he would just disappear, but I'll wait for the trial before I convict him in the court of public opinion.
The presumption of innocence part and the wait for the trial part are what we do before we put someone in jail. It's a high burden.
But we are not just thinking about putting Trump in jail. We are thinking about returning him to public trust with our votes. We don't have to presume innocence or wait for a trial before making a determination that Trump does not deserve public trust and should not get our votes.
Thanks for finally openly admitting what this is all about.
Isn't making a determination that any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, deserves public trust and should or should not get our votes already something we do at every election?
(08-28-2023, 11:57 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2023, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The presumption of innocence part and the wait for the trial part are what we do before we put someone in jail. It's a high burden.
But we are not just thinking about putting Trump in jail. We are thinking about returning him to public trust with our votes. We don't have to presume innocence or wait for a trial before making a determination that Trump does not deserve public trust and should not get our votes.
Thanks for finally openly admitting what this is all about.
Isn't making a determination that any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, deserves public trust and should or should not get our votes already something we do at every election?
Sure. And 99.9% of the time there is no probable cause to believe a candidate committed a crime, so prosecutors aren't involved in that phase.