Tweet
Originally posted by Berzerker
View Post
-
You have this wrong. Even if what he did wasn't illegal(which is twas), he was the President and deceit on such a large scale is inexcusable."I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003-
What dishonesty compares with lying us into wars? The Dems lied in 2016 onward, they channeled Joseph McCarthy and J Edgar and not only smeared Trump as a traitor they fabricated evidence and used it at the top levels of the Obama administration to frame Trump. Oh yeah, the Dems spent those years claiming the election was stolen based on their lies linking Trump to Putin. I cant believe anyone would gripe about Trump after that display of Machiavellian machinations.
-
-
Bezerker, is this missing something? Where is the smoke? The fire?
JMJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.Comment
-
Hunter is a scumbag and I don't think his dad is much better, but I have seen no evidence yet that Papa Joe has done anything illegal or impeachable. I do think he is a far better politician than a person, but that seems to be the trend in American politics these days....Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003Comment
-
Why would I believe him? Why was Joe in the habit of calling during Hunter's business meetings? I heard they're up to 20 now. Tony Bobulinsky already gave the FBI evidence of Joe's involvement in Hunter's business dealings.Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostComment
-
Trump had the right to lie about the election and challenge the results, the indictment says so.Originally posted by PLATO View Post
​​​​​​https://youtu.be/FPkT0ibUIuc
4:30m in Glenn Greenwald offers his preliminary analysis
We'll see if his effort violated the law
Greenwald says the strongest case against Trump is the Mar Lago documents
Comment
-
Trump had the right to lie to the public, and to pursue challenges in the courts. He did not have the right to try to change the results based on lies, so as to subvert the election. So things like pushing Pence to not certify the election or Georgia to find him the votes to win Georgia or pushing false electors in Michigan.
The Mar Lago documents case is slam dunk. My understanding is that part of this case does depend on arguing about what Trump believed to be true, which is a little more difficult.
JMJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.Comment
-
That show is ridiculous, I can't believe you give it any credence.
JMJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.Comment
-
He's a pothead comedian, the analysis was provided by Glenn Greenwald
meanwhile our Weekend at Bidens adventure continuesComment
-
It's downright amazing that people will stand with trump, support him for president and non-ironically say "Trump had the right to lie about the election". While being president.
So much for believing in democracy.Indifference is BlissComment
-
OTOH the Navalny witch hunt moves forward as expected:
BlahComment
-
But it didn't give him the legal right to set up "fake" electors in an attempt to thwart​ the constitution and American voters.Originally posted by Berzerker View Post
That was illegal.
Keep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
I was paraphrasing the indictment, it said he has the right to lie and challenge the election results at the federal and state levels. That presents a problem for the prosecution, they're charging him with fraud while telling us he gets to lie. I dont know why the prez is uniquely prohibited from lying about elections. Dems spent years lying about cops to promote riots before the election, does that sound like democracy? Would you welcome a BLM riot in your neighborhood and call the results democracy? If not, what would you call it? MAGA had 1 riot and it was the end of Democracy!!! BLM had over 500 and the Dems and our VP were raising $$$ to bail the rioters out of jail.Originally posted by N35t0r View Post
I'm not a Democrat, they're the people who believe in democracy
. I'm not enamored with majority rule, I'd prefer limits on what my neighbors can do to me. Trump is irrelevant, he didn't fabricate a conspiracy to smear his opponent and lie to a Fisa court to spy on them. Ya'll need to snap out of the us & them mentality of partisan politics, millions of people dont like either party and treating us like collaborators and traitors wont convert independents.
Comment
-
Fraudulent actions (more generally) need to have multiple elements demonstrated in order to be considered fraud. One of which is a material misrepresentation of fact (aka lying). By itself, lying is not an offence, you need to demonstrate other things like intent, reliance, actual harm, etc. to get the conviction.Originally posted by Berzerker View PostOne day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
And I think this more like a fraudster trying to con you out of money, and then giving up and just trying to steal your wallet when sweet talking failed.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
Comment