The Judiciary is a major problem.

[SaintsInDome2006 576]

16 minutes ago, shadrap said:

is there any topic someone can bring up without you going all TRUUUUUUMP?

No need to answer.

Well ordinarily I would say this is just a local issue but the president has spoken on this, the only reason anyone on the right cares about this is the president’s personal henchman Coristine is involved, & the president has taken it upon himself to determine that the US military is responsible for local law enforcement. And frankly it’s a staple of conservatism that character in office matters. I have nothing to do with any of that but you might as well acknowledge it.

[SaintsInDome2006 576]

19 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

This how this works:

The Left:  We hate Trump!  What can we do to "get" him?  Let's change the law to make up some charges!

Trump:  Who wait a minute!  That's not fair or legal.

The Left: We don't care.  Lawfare is the way to go!

NY:  We charged and found him guilty based on the laws we made up specifically to get Trump!

The Left: OMG!  How can you righties support Trump - a convicted felon?!?!?!? 

 

Eh we can discuss this without left/right. I live in a city where the mayor was indicted and so was the DA at one point & they’re both Dems. One should have resigned & the other never should have been elected. It’s a simple principle, if you want people to care about following the law don’t elect people who break the law.

[shadrap 249]

13 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well ordinarily I would say this is just a local issue but the president has spoken on this, the only reason anyone on the right cares about this is the president’s personal henchman Coristine is involved, & the president has taken it upon himself to determine that the US military is responsible for local law enforcement. And frankly it’s a staple of conservatism that character in office matters. I have nothing to do with any of that but you might as well acknowledge it.

"the president has taken it upon himself to determine that the US military is responsible for local law enforcement".

No,  the US military is not responsible for local law enforcement. he is helping local law enforcement and from all reports it helped.  So now you are against safer streets and less crime because Trump is helping out.  I get it, but I also get you won't get over TDS.  Actually, we all get that too.

TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fnord 2,463]

31 minutes ago, shadrap said:

"the president has taken it upon himself to determine that the US military is responsible for local law enforcement".

No,  the US military is not responsible for local law enforcement. he is helping local law enforcement and from all reports it helped.  So now you are against safer streets and less crime because Trump is helping out.  I get it, but I also get you won't get over TDS.  Actually, we all get that too.

TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bolded is far from true. There are myriad reports of the NG NOT helping. How is tear gassing Chicago cops helping them?

At what point might you be willing to admit Don has done something wrong or improper? Or illegal? When does any of the evidence of him violating the law and constitution get acknowledged by his supporters? Y'all just hide behind "TDS!!!!" and apparently believe that allows you to not have to evaluate any of his actions. 

 

[shadrap 249]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

Bolded is far from true. There are myriad reports of the NG NOT helping. How is tear gassing Chicago cops helping them?

At what point might you be willing to admit Don has done something wrong or improper? Or illegal? When does any of the evidence of him violating the law and constitution get acknowledged by his supporters? Y'all just hide behind "TDS!!!!" and apparently believe that allows you to not have to evaluate any of his actions. 

 

When the Supreme court rules against him I will acknowledge it's not right.  It's also not right for the government to be buying shares of companies.  It's also not right for me paying for illegals health insurance.

Trump administration moves to stop Medicaid funds to illegal immigrants |

Trump!!

[SaintsInDome2006 576]

2 hours ago, shadrap said:

"the president has taken it upon himself to determine that the US military is responsible for local law enforcement".

No,  the US military is not responsible for local law enforcement. he is helping local law enforcement and from all reports it helped.  So now you are against safer streets and less crime because Trump is helping out.  I get it, but I also get you won't get over TDS.  Actually, we all get that too.

TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See, to paraphrase Ving Rhames in Pulp Fiction, that’s just your conservatism skrewing with you.

Conservatives have always been loudly federalists, they stoutly supported posse comitatus, so much so they’ve even opposed the federal government sending money back to local law enforcement. Or they used to be.

The cities across America have had modern record drops in crime (& please don’t raise fake stats, Patel’s FBI gathers all that now). 

No one in DC, Chicago or Portland is claiming that it helped. And no interviews of pedestrians by Fox doesn’t really cut it.FYI. But that *really doesn’t matter. What matters is the President of the USA is a felon who stands before the world & tells it how awful, dirty & dangerous our cities are, while he sends troops to them while he cuts off funds to those same cities instead of just giving cops & other resources what they need to reduce crime (& which btw taxpayers have already paid for).

[SaintsInDome2006 576]

Any mags supporters want to address why the Seth Rich murder in the same neighborhood during a period of much higher crime rates didn’t provoke the same reaction from Trump & his followers?

[jerryskids 7,033]

4 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’m not really sure why judges or even criminals should respect or concern themselves with any of this when the President of the US is himself a felon & was indicted multiple times besides that. I wish I was just needling you, but it sends an awful message to everyone.

The "awful message" is that Democrats used lawfare to gin up novel felony scenarios to indict and convict the presumptive Republican candidate for POTUS.  

4 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

This how this works:

The Left:  We hate Trump!  What can we do to "get" him?  Let's change the law to make up some charges!

Trump:  Who wait a minute!  That's not fair or legal.

The Left: We don't care.  Lawfare is the way to go!

NY:  We charged and found him guilty based on the laws we made up specifically to get Trump!

The Left: OMG!  How can you righties support Trump - a convicted felon?!?!?!? 

 

Good summary, but he doesn't get it.  Or he's intentionally being obtuse, since he seems intelligent.

Normies get this, hard core Lefties don't.  Every time a Leftie calls Trump a felon$#@!, the collective country rolls their eyes at them.

[SaintsInDome2006 576]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

The "awful message" is that Democrats used lawfare to gin up novel felony scenarios to indict and convict the presumptive Republican candidate for POTUS.  

Half the convicts in the pen will tell you they were railroaded.

[jerryskids 7,033]

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Half the convicts in the pen will tell you they were railroaded.

So that means Trump wasn't?   

[SaintsInDome2006 576]

Just now, jerryskids said:

So that means Trump wasn't? 

Of course not, wrongful convictions happen. They’re overturned via appeal typically.

[jerryskids 7,033]

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Of course not, wrongful convictions happen. They’re overturned via appeal typically.

So you have no problem with the state ginning together two misdemeanors in a novel, never before done way, to create a felony with which to circumvent statutes of limitations and convict the presumptive and eventual opposite party candidate?

[SaintsInDome2006 576]

6 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So you have no problem with the state ginning together two misdemeanors in a novel, never before done way, to create a felony with which to circumvent statutes of limitations and convict the presumptive and eventual opposite party candidate?

Eh if you told me a candidate used his company to hide hush money to pay off a prostitute to avoid FEC fines & embarrassment, yes I’d be good with it. For instance if Starr had found Bill & Hillary had done that to pay off Lewinsky in 1999 I’d have said yeah impeach him & charge him. 100%.

[shadrap 249]

2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

See, to paraphrase Ving Rhames in Pulp Fiction, that’s just your conservatism skrewing with you.

Conservatives have always been loudly federalists, they stoutly supported posse comitatus, so much so they’ve even opposed the federal government sending money back to local law enforcement. Or they used to be.

The cities across America have had modern record drops in crime (& please don’t raise fake stats, Patel’s FBI gathers all that now). 

No one in DC, Chicago or Portland is claiming that it helped. And no interviews of pedestrians by Fox doesn’t really cut it.FYI. But that *really doesn’t matter. What matters is the President of the USA is a felon who stands before the world & tells it how awful, dirty & dangerous our cities are, while he sends troops to them while he cuts off funds to those same cities instead of just giving cops & other resources what they need to reduce crime (& which btw taxpayers have already paid for).

"What matters is the President of the USA is a felon".  You keep referring to this over & over.   Didn't matter to 1/2 the folks in the USA because they saw what it was. ginned up charges that would never have been brought if he wasn't a threat to the Dems.  Never. You base everything and anything you argue based on your hate of Trump.  Doesn't matter what he does you will never get passed it.  TDS full blown.  good luck the next 3 years and for god's sake stay on your meds.

 

[SaintsInDome2006 576]

32 minutes ago, shadrap said:

What matters is the President of the USA is a felon".  You keep referring to this over & over.   Didn't matter to 1/2 the folks in the USA because they saw what it was. ginned up charges that would never have been brought if he wasn't a threat to the Dems.  Never. 

I’ve heard this argument before obviously & I won’t rehash it. And you’re certainly right people voted for it. But then I come from an area that has voted for people like Edwin Edwards & Ray Nagin. Our DA ran while indicted and he was elected. 

[Voltaire 5,451]

10 hours ago, Fnord said:

A couple things:

Love your new avatar. 

I'm not sure what you're talking about re: the bolded, could you elaborate with an example or two?

I'm also curious as to when the judiciary will STOP being a problem in MAGA's eyes. What will they have to do? The judge in the case of the OP was following normal sentencing guidelines, much like any judge would be expected to do. Should those judges ignore guidelines based on who the victim's friends are? Maybe we should just scrap the whole system and lot Don decide all of the court cases he already has an opinion on? 

He's taking on all sorts of long-standing problems that other politicians can't/won't/don't solve and having great success and trying different things to get good results. Some of these have greatly succeeded, some are in the process, but things like solve the illegal immigration issue, such as peace in the Middle East, ending the Russia/Ukraine War, destroying Iran's nuclear program, ridding the government of the cabal of left wing apparatchiks, defending US history and western civilization from leftoids who guilt shame or rewrite history in a related way ridding the government of DEI and using what leverage he has to do the same outside government, raising military readiness standards, cleaning up DC and rooting out crime in other major cities, ending big tech media censorship, dragging colleges kicking and screaming into ending practices of deeply entrenched racism, new and untried trade policies around tariffs designed to coerce companies to build and hire, I'm not a fan of MAHA and what RFK Jr is doing with that, but it is big and aggressive with new ideas at any rate. While I think birthright citizenship is stupid, I do think its constitutionally protected and SCOTUS will bat it down, but I do like the effort of trying to end it. Now he's looking at what if anything to do about Maduro. 

That's just off teh top of my head. He's doing a hundred good things all at once. 

[jerryskids 7,033]

5 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Eh if you told me a candidate used his company to hide hush money to pay off a prostitute to avoid FEC fines & embarrassment, yes I’d be good with it. For instance if Starr had found Bill & Hillary had done that to pay off Lewinsky in 1999 I’d have said yeah impeach him & charge him. 100%.

I... got nothing.  You've got TDS, you just don't realize it, and there is clearly no value in discussing with you how ludicrous that lawfare was.  I'll remember this post the next time you wax poetic about our democracy being in danger.   

[jonnyutah 521]

9 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Any mags supporters want to address why the Seth Rich murder in the same neighborhood during a period of much higher crime rates didn’t provoke the same reaction from Trump & his followers?

Because we are afraid of hillary. 

[Fnord 2,463]

15 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I... got nothing.  You've got TDS, you just don't realize it, and there is clearly no value in discussing with you how ludicrous that lawfare was.  I'll remember this post the next time you wax poetic about our democracy being in danger.   

Jerry, you keep pointing out the one series of convictions against Trump, which many on the left (myself included) have always considered by far the weakest of the multiple cases pending trial when he was elected. At which point, he flexed unprecedented influence over the DOJ and conveniently made the more insidious charges disappear.

Running out the clock ain't exoneration, and Don was dead to rights in Georgia and the Mar a Lago documents cases.

You also ignore the many, many pieces of evidence pointing toward Trump running a massive, unregulated pay-for-play operation through his crypto schemes. And unlawful dispatch of NG troops, illegal appointments, massive overreach in Executive power, full takeover of the DOJ, FBI, and ongoing war against the Judiciary. While the entirety of the congressional GOP rolls over and plays dead and Don screws their constitients out of their health care.

It's unfortunate that people like you have blinders firmly affixed aand the best you can come up with is "TDS" when presented with contradictory views. 

[jerryskids 7,033]

56 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Jerry, you keep pointing out the one series of convictions against Trump, which many on the left (myself included) have always considered by far the weakest of the multiple cases pending trial when he was elected. At which point, he flexed unprecedented influence over the DOJ and conveniently made the more insidious charges disappear.

Running out the clock ain't exoneration, and Don was dead to rights in Georgia and the Mar a Lago documents cases.

You also ignore the many, many pieces of evidence pointing toward Trump running a massive, unregulated pay-for-play operation through his crypto schemes. And unlawful dispatch of NG troops, illegal appointments, massive overreach in Executive power, full takeover of the DOJ, FBI, and ongoing war against the Judiciary. While the entirety of the congressional GOP rolls over and plays dead and Don screws their constitients out of their health care.

It's unfortunate that people like you have blinders firmly affixed aand the best you can come up with is "TDS" when presented with contradictory views. 

We were specifically discussing SaintsInDome's calling Trump a "felon" and that in his opinion, his felony convictions should prohibit him from becoming POTUS.  To my knowledge, that only applies to the case I mentioned.

And you seem to agree with me that the felony convictions were a traveshamockery.  But Saints is quite the opposite.  I don't even know how to have that conversation; TDS is the only reason I could think that somebody twists that case in their mind into an acceptable case of jurisprudence.

On the general topic of the felony prohibition, prior to the Stormy case I'd have been willing to discuss it.  But after that lawfare, I don't see how I could support it.

[SaintsInDome2006 576]

16 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I... got nothing.  You've got TDS, you just don't realize it, and there is clearly no value in discussing with you how ludicrous that lawfare was.  I'll remember this post the next time you wax poetic about our democracy being in danger.   

Hold on, In specifically mentioned the Clintons, is that so far fetched? They had an LLC investigated. If they had found Bill using it to make and hide hush money payments it would’ve been curtains for him. I thought that was pretty reasonable.

[jerryskids 7,033]

6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Hold on, In specifically mentioned the Clintons, is that so far fetched? They had an LLC investigated. If they had found Bill using it to make and hide hush money payments it would’ve been curtains for him. I thought that was pretty reasonable.

The issue wasn't whether or not the Trump team technically committed a campaign misdemeanor long ago.  The issue is exactly how I stated it; I'm not going to go back and copy and paste it.  Go and reread it.  If you say you'd be fine with, say, Arkansas dredging up a decades' old misdemeanor on Hillary, and spinning it into a novel felony for the sole purpose of trying to derail her run for POTUS, I'd say you are full of crap.

[SaintsInDome2006 576]

13 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

The issue wasn't whether or not the Trump team technically committed a campaign misdemeanor long ago.  The issue is exactly how I stated it; I'm not going to go back and copy and paste it.  Go and reread it.  If you say you'd be fine with, say, Arkansas dredging up a decades' old misdemeanor on Hillary, and spinning it into a novel felony for the sole purpose of trying to derail her run for POTUS, I'd say you are full of crap.

Well I was talking about the scenario where it could have happened while Bill Clinton was President, which I’d think we both could agree on.

As for your comp about a hypothetical where Bill’s past actions would’ve been dug up when Hillary ran years later, you’re forgetting something. Trump made the payments when President, and in leading up to his taking office. That brings it back to being more like the 1st hypothetical with Bill doing it while in office.