In message <uuttdi$2o2ua$1@dont-email.me>
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
The reality, i.e. what was determined from the observable facts, was
that Trump was the one trying to steal the election. I'm surprised
that that has attracted so little attention.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases, >>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised >>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a >> clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". Hypocrites the >> lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have politically- motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
while Alvin Bragg refuses to
prosecute violent street criminals.
All that proves is that he should have crossed the Rubicon after the
massive election theft of 2020 and started having lots of Democrats
put up against the wall and shot.
Do you even hear yourself? Is that really the sort of america you want to
live in where there's no rule of law. People are targeted with violence
simply for stating the truth.
Laws don't rule.
Only men do.
David Higton wrote:
In message <uuttdi$2o2ua$1@dont-email.me>
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
The reality, i.e. what was determined from the observable facts, was
that
...they stopped counting in the middle of the night,
threw out the
observers,
and trucked in enough fraudulent ballots to swing the
election.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases, >>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone. >>>>>
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a >>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation aren't just
anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be
prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred he'd just >>>> be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of their >>>> own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". Hypocrites the >>>> lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have politically- >>> motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The right were
desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as Trump. Again,
it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not how fair
society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
anything.
while Alvin Bragg refuses to
prosecute violent street criminals.
All that proves is that he should have crossed the Rubicon after the >>>>> massive election theft of 2020 and started having lots of Democrats
put up against the wall and shot.
Do you even hear yourself? Is that really the sort of america you want to >>>> live in where there's no rule of law. People are targeted with violence >>>> simply for stating the truth.
Laws don't rule.
False.
Not false. "Rule of law" is a political ideal, a fiction.
Only men do.
What about women? ;)
Women shouldn't be in politics.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
David Higton wrote:
In message <uuttdi$2o2ua$1@dont-email.me>
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
The reality, i.e. what was determined from the observable facts, was
that
...they stopped counting in the middle of the night,
As per their rules (in a few counties) laid down before the election began. >> People are allowed to sleep.
Only to resume counting a relatively short time later?
Furthermore, if you are counting mail-in votes (which should be
banned), you should be required to remain in that room until it's
DONE. No exceptions.
threw out the
observers,
Because they were trying to interfere with the count.
No they weren't.
They were no longer observers.
They were observers.
and trucked in enough fraudulent ballots to swing the
election.
Didn't happen.
They had overwhelming motive and opportunity. Therefore, it is
reasonable to shift the burden of proof to those who claim the
election was clean.
In all cases of voter fraud two things were discovered 1) in no instance
was there enough to come close to affect any vote, 2) most of the
fraudulent ballots were in favour of GOP candidates.
"Cases of voter fraud" as reported by the fake media, which simply
does not report cases of fraud in favor of Democrat candidates.
On 2024-04-11 19:53, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
David Higton wrote:
In message <uuttdi$2o2ua$1@dont-email.me>
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
The reality, i.e. what was determined from the observable facts, was >>>>>>> that
...they stopped counting in the middle of the night,
As per their rules (in a few counties) laid down before the election >>>>> began.
People are allowed to sleep.
Only to resume counting a relatively short time later?
Furthermore, if you are counting mail-in votes (which should be
banned), you should be required to remain in that room until it's
DONE. No exceptions.
Says who? It'll solve nothing.
There's only one reason why you want to ban mail-in ballots.
threw out the
observers,
Because they were trying to interfere with the count.
No they weren't.
They were no longer observers.
They were observers.
and trucked in enough fraudulent ballots to swing the
election.
Didn't happen.
They had overwhelming motive and opportunity. Therefore, it is
reasonable to shift the burden of proof to those who claim the
election was clean.
Already happened. All of Trump's cases claiming the above were either
dismissed or found against him. 0/62 is an impressive failure rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election
All that proves is that the courts are thoroughly corrupt. A lot of those
cases were dismissed on procedural grounds.
Then Trump's lawyers should have followed procedure.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:Not morally.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone. >>>>>>>
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong. >>>
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one >> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
charged?
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation aren't just >>>> anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be
prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
Why? Civil law is just as important.
Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that
in the criminal system.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and shouldn't face
trial. The courts should decide.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it >>>>>> wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases, >>>>>>>All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of their >>>>>> own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have politically- >>>>> motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The right were >>>> desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as Trump. Again, >>>> it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not how fair >>>> society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
On 2024-04-11 19:55, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, >>>>>>>>>>> every oneWhile I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm. >>>>>>>>>>
candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the
greater evil. Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in? >>>>>>>
compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the United >>>> States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR shells?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
And I forgot to ask:
Where do you get your supposed "facts" about how many missiles and
shells Russia can produce?
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:Not morally.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone. >>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong. >>>>>
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've >>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the >> CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one, if you really want to get into that debate.
On 4/14/24 2:34 AM, Chris wrote:
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
When everyone is carrying a gun you can't differentiate between the good
and bad guys. When you ban guns the bad guys are easy to spot.
Then what? Call a cop and maybe one will show up in half an hour?
But "muh freedom" is more important. Idiots the lot of them.
On 4/14/24 11:13 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/14/24 10:43 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 10:38, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/14/24 2:34 AM, Chris wrote:
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no >>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be >>>>>> men.
When everyone is carrying a gun you can't differentiate between the >>>>>> good
and bad guys. When you ban guns the bad guys are easy to spot.
Then what? Call a cop and maybe one will show up in half an hour?
But "muh freedom" is more important. Idiots the lot of them.
You know, Canada is pretty much identical to the US from a
cultural/socio-economic standpoint and yet there is this one weird thing: >>>>
We have far FAR fewer people getting killed by firearms; more then 5
times fewer.
Canadians are just nicer than USians. OTOH, "they're not even a real
country anyway!"
That's your best is it?
Not worth the full effort.
We have lots of guns and lots of criminals. More than we have cops.
Aside from wishing, and in the full knowledge that this situation will continue for the indefinite future, what do you think the average law-abiding citizen should do in case of attack by a criminal?
Yeah, most people don't carry. Would there be more or less crime if
armed criminals KNEW that their intended victims were NOT carrying?
That's all the effort I'm going to put into an argument that's gone on
for decades.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
Do you notice anything about that chart?
So what?
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've >>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially >>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the >>>> CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd >> prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one, >>> if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
When everyone is carrying a gun
But not everyone carries a gun.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially >>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL! >>>>>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?
No he didn't. Maybe you should be rape hoaxed.
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd >>>> prefer the wild west.Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no >>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men. >>>
No one needs vigilantes.
Self-defense is not vigilantism.
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened tip?
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened >>> tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law enforcement is too far away to be protective?
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
What should she have done?
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business
partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL! >>>>>>>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?
No he didn't. Maybe you should be rape hoaxed.
You're getting incoherent. Are the drugs wearing off?
No one needs vigilantes.Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no >>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society. >>>>
Self-defense is not vigilantism.
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
Yes it is.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most
civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
case is a
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted
one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL! >>>>>>>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein? >>>
AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no >>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society. >>>>>
When everyone is carrying a gun
But not everyone carries a gun.
The simple fact is:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
Deal with it.
Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
gun?
And why the focus on the "developed world"?
Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth, social
development, etc.
Mexico has fierce gun lawsAnd there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
and a much higher murder rate.
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
On 4/19/24 11:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 22:19, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/19/24 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 20:25, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they
need to do to survive.
Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball
shoes?
You really ARE a racist, aren't you?
End of "discussion".
Coward.
'Racist' is the modern version of 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' and signals the
end of the discussion. Surely you remember this convention...
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS >>>>> AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or
business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most
civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
case is a
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something
wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually >>>>>>>>>>>> assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein? >>>>>
Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society. >>>>>>>
When everyone is carrying a gun
But not everyone carries a gun.
The simple fact is:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
Deal with it.
Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a >>>>> gun?
And why the focus on the "developed world"?
Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth, social >>>> development, etc.
Mexico has fierce gun lawsAnd there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
and a much higher murder rate.
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to do to
survive.
Poverty is the natural state of man.
There are plenty of poor civilized people,
and I don't see them turning their neighborhoods into crime-ridden ghettos.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to do to
survive.
Poverty is the natural state of man.
There are plenty of poor civilized people,
and I don't see them turning their neighborhoods into crime-ridden ghettos.
On 2024-04-21 13:15, Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
...
No one needs vigilantes.There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society. >>>>>>>>
Self-defense is not vigilantism.
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
Yes it is.
Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm. >>>>
Those in the United States who lawfully carry a concealed handgun
hope they never need to use it, but want to be prepared for that
eventuality.
Why? I've been to the US. It isn't as lawless you make out.
As a visitor I'm more worried about getting caught in cross-fire than
actually being a victim of crime.
Or stepping somewhere and being shot as trespasser :-D
Arno Welzel wrote:
Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people.
The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
Are these kids suburban whites?
Watch the racist speak!
Noticing is "racist". LOL!
Yes.
HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
No, it doesn't. What matters is that people force others to live in
conditions they would not accept for themself. Unfortunately those in
power in the US are often white and the others not. But this does not
mean, that black people are "naturally" different.
"Housing discrimination" has been illegal in the United States for over
fifty years now.
There is no forcing blacks to live in the conditions
they live in.
It's not our fault that they shit in their nests.
Race matters.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 920 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 81:14:57 |
| Calls: | 12,187 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 186,526 |
| Messages: | 2,236,986 |
