Fnord

It's fascinating that the people defending credit card companies for price gouging are going on about personal responsibility. WTF happened to corporate responsibility? According to established law, corporations are people. And people are supposed to be held accountable. So, when these massive corporations engage in illegal activities like price gouging, price fixing, monopolization, continue to produce products that harm consumers while covering up the evidence, etc., suddenly you rise to their defense? WTF?

You think this but call me stupid. Good one.

Sky News Australia is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Big shock to everyone that YOU don't see the nuance. Or ANY nuance, really. One of the necessities of being a MAGAMOOK.

This guy will vote for Donald Trump. Anyone else see the disconnect?

"The Government" did not try or convict anyone. A very small group of people did their jobs: interpret law and the constitution. They ruled that based on the law and available evidence that Trump committed, or aided and abetted, insurrection. SCOTUS disagreed, case closed. You'll notice SCOTUS did not give an opinion on Trump’s culpability, only that the states aren't allowed to remove him from the ballot. You can believe those that made the rulings did it in a partisan manner; I won't argue with you. But at no point were these rulings made by trial, or have any sort of prosecutory heft. What you're suggesting happened, didn't happen. At least not in the way you're trying to frame it.

Are you of the opinion that legalizing Marijuana leads to more violent crime?

He can't show evidence that he WASN'T an abortion.

Let's hear your thoughts then.

What then?

And?

I think most of the non-MAGA contingent is already there. Unfortunately both political parties don't GAF what we want.

I get this line of reasoning, but it only means you weren't paying attention. Trump and his team, especially that gutter dwelling drunk Steve Bannon, telegraphed their entire playbook before voting even started. It was well known that the absentee ballots would favor Democrats, since the GOP had been waging war on it for months telling Republicans not to vote that way. It was also well known that those votes would be tabulated after in person votes in most districts. BEFORE the election, Bannon told his listeners the plan. It was 100% telegraphed to maximize outrage without any proof whatsoever.

Good to see your continued bigotry at work maxiepad. I applaud your dedication and consistency!

So you can start another tranny thread?

He refused to accept the results of the election, despite multiple audits, court cases, and members of his own staff and family telling him otherwise. His speech on Jan 6 was not in an official capacity as POTUS, since he was addressing a crowd of his supporters in an attempt to get them to march to the Capitol. One can disagree with that last part I suppose, but if you think it's cool for a POTUS to do that, you don't want a president, you want a king. Or a dictator.

Huh. I'm just special. I've sunk the 8 on the break at least once and seen it at least twice. All just by chance. I have at least two friends I've seen hit three bulls in a throw. They could never do it consistently, of course. When playing either game we were usually intoxicated or on the way toward it.

Once an individual gets to that level of power and influence, I'd wager only a tiny percentage remain "clean." We'll agree to disagree on your impeachment comment.

Do you have anything to offer besides ad hominem attacks? You've been asked legitimate questions a few times now, and your response is always the same. Deflection by way of pugnacious pri<kery. I'll save you the time of googling the definition of some of those words, and the inevitable mental anguish of attempting to interpret the last bit based on context (another word you probably don't understand): you contribute little but bile and resentment. At least do yourself the service of not making it easy to assume the very worst about you and your character. Give an actual opinion about an issue and not the poster once in a while.

First 2 bolded: You say 2017 but also when Joe was VP. Which was it? Or are there other events that DID occur before 2017? Of course that's why Hunter got the job. Doubt many dispute that. It's unflattering, unethical, and untoward of course, but not illegal. And many high functioning addicts do go on jags when they have periods of time when their consumption is particularly heavy and they're more prone to bad choices or fail to recall events. Like the Trump NY fraud case, I think this investigation is politically motivated. But if it shows that crimes were committed, prosecution and consequences must occur. If Joe accepted gifts for favors while VP, then impeach, indict, imprison him. I just don't see enough evidence here to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Fair. I enjoy doing my favorite outdoor stuff on my own as well. If you're inclined toward it and staying at the right places, you'll find some good folks to hang out with anyway. Nights spent soaking and indulging in ones' chemicals of choice with attractive (and frequently nude) strangers ain't a bad way to spend 'alone time.'

Psst. If you need some useless but entertaining company, I know a guy...

In the 1630s? More likely they murdered a few redskins and hacked the plantation out of the countryside. We're talking 140+ years before the Declaration of Independence was signed.

There are several other differences of which you are aware. I have admitted that the Trump fraud trial seems to be politically motivated. But that doesn't mean he's innocent (he's not). I disagree with the rationale for the investigation, but not the results. The idea that an elected president can unilaterally shut down investigations and trials for alleged crimes is about as anti-constitutional as a concept can be. I can begrudgingly accept the DOJ policy of not charging a sitting President, but what Trump is poised to do is beyond the pale. And I don't see conservatives, who love to tout themselves as the 'law and order' party, complaining at all. In many cases they cheer while slamming Biden for being crooked with nowhere near the same volume or quality of evidence that has been compiled against Trump.

No it doesn't. So what you seem to be saying without actually saying it, is that you're good with it as long as the charges are "BS." Being acquainted with your politics, the logical interpretation of that is "Republican presidents are cool with pardoning themselves and firing special counsels investigating them, Democratic presidents are crooked and don't deserve that ability."