What do you expect from someone who "proposes" to give weapons to teachers in order to prevent mass shootings in schools?Originally Posted by demagogue
Um, it's people like these who back in the day gleefully posted videos of black protesters getting run over by cars, so yes, that's exactly what they are hoping for. They want to see violence and escalation, cause they think the leopards will only eat the faces of people they don't like.
They really can't understand how the state works.They think as a tribe, the ones they put in power think.....as in power
Yeah, that's been my go-to response recently. It's really going to come down to that, if it comes down to that. If you have people supporting deputized military knocking on doors to take people away without evidence or some fair procedure, I have to warn them that at some point their neighbor or personal enemy can just call them a traitor, and then those officers are going come knocking at their door or their friends or family. And they say, oh, but I have evidence I'm a citizen. Or oh, but I haven't committed any crime. Or oh, but I voted for Trump.
But to even get to this point they've already long ago thrown out fair trials or procedures and a requirement for evidence for detentions. That's not going to protect them at all. But by the time the knocks start happening on their doors it's too late.
But I want to go on record that arbitrary militarized round-ups and detentions without evidence or judicial review, which is sure to round up US citizens as well, is always going to be wrong, and you always need those kinds of protections. I'm protesting it now for them, and I'll keep protesting it when they start knocking on the doors of people like Ripped as well. If some of us can be abused without evidence or a fair process, than all of us are vulnerable to it, and I don't want to see everybody have to live quiet lives always watching what they say because nobody wants to be turned into the police for what they said. It's a sad and grey life that always happens in police stats and always starts out with "but they're only going after the illegals", before they realize it's all to easy for someone else to just call them an illegal as well if we're not trusting evidence or fair trials or jury verdicts anymore.
They don't mind the abuses because they think the strong man is going to be their guy, the abuses are only going to be against the illegals. But the strong man won't hesitate to have you arrested as easily as anyone else, once the guardrails are taken down.
Last edited by demagogue; 4th Dec 2024 at 18:58.
Well what it may happen, you better have invested in Bitcoins, because they're going up (USD 100000).
And if you're jailed because you're mentally ill, or politically ill, even criminally ill, well here it comes the big brother welcome to 1984 erm 2024.
Run dude run dude.
What's really crazy, is that Trump was impeached for trying to investigate all the crimes Joe Biden just pardoned Hunter for.
Well, that's just a bald-faced lie, as usual from Vae. The only actual crimes that got pardoned had absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine. Trump was impeached for attempting to extort Ukraine into an announcement of an investigation (not any actual investigation, which would be counter-productive as far as Trump is concerned) of a case that had already been investigated and dismissed. And to be clear, that's totally illegal for Trump to do even if there had been a crime.
Ironically, and just to underscore how much of a liar Vae is, the pardon does absolutely nothing to cover a crime against Ukraine, the thing Trump asked for an announcement of an investigation into.
But it does tie back, doesn't it? Trump is clearly willing to engage in what y'all call "lawfare" against Biden's family, as seen in that impeachment, which arguably justifies the broad pardon.
From CNN:
I wonder why the pardon would have to cover all the way back to 2014...? Trump asked the Ukrainian government on a phone call to explain why Hunter Biden was receiving payoffs from Burisma Holdings as early as 2015. According to Democrats, Trump merely asking this question was illegal and renders him unfit for office. Yet Joe Biden felt that he had to pardon Hunter for whatever activities he was performing back in 2015.The broadly crafted pardon explicitly grants clemency for the tax and gun offenses from his existing cases, plus any potential federal crimes that Hunter Biden may have committed “from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.” This time frame, importantly, covers his entire tenure on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and much of his other overseas work, including in China. He had faced scrutiny for his controversial foreign business dealings
It must have been some pretty incriminating stuff, if Trump had to be impeached for just asking about it.
I wonder what it'll be like for the Capitol police, that were there during the last election excitement, after Trump returns to the White House. What a trip...
Last edited by mxleader; 5th Dec 2024 at 22:31.
Lord Dampnut was not "asking questions about Hunter". He was holding up Congress-mandated aid to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation into his political opponent for his political gain. That's pretty damn illegal if you're asking me. And you don't even have to ask me. It clearly broke federal law, as per the conclusion of the governmental watchdog group investigating it.
So investigating your political opponent is illegal eh...? That's so weird since the Democrats have done little else since 2016 but investigate their political opponent for dozens of various made-up hoax crimes.
And even if the aid was "Congress-mandated," it's perfectly reasonable to tell the Ukrainian government that if we're going to send you hundreds of millions of dollars, you need to stop helping to money-launder a bunch of it back into Hunter's (and by extension Joe's) pockets through Burisma.
contortionism
To be clear, pressuring a foreign leader by holding up Congress-mandated aid is the illegal part. A prosecutor deciding to prosecute something, according to law and with all the legal protections afforded, is not illegal. That is what prosecutors do regularly. Likewise, the persecution of Hunter was political, but it was not illegal.
Also, hoax crimes? Lord Dampnut stole top secret documents and refused to give them back, then only gave back a portion of them and tried to hide the rest. He incited an insurrection that ended up with cops being assaulted by his followers and US elected representatives being chased by a mob, having to flee for their lives, all in order to disrupt a democratic process. He tried to pressure election officials to change the outcome of an election he very clearly lost. Do I need to go on? The evidence is right there, in plain sight. Now, what did Brandon do that isn't the fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists?
Last edited by Starker; 6th Dec 2024 at 03:40.
Maybe I have to go back to the very basics -- Congress has the power of the purse. US presidents, no matter how powerful they have become are still yet not kings and have no right to override the Congress on these matters. Hell, that was all the fuss with the Iran-Contra -- Reagan wanted to fund terrorists to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, but Congress wasn't allowing him, so he decided to do it anyway, but on the sly.
Also, investigating your political opponents is not a good look even on a good day, but doing it sneakily and illegally is again what Watergate was all about -- undertaking illegal actions to find some sort of dirt on your opponents.
Is that what this is all about, then? Relitigating Watergate and Iran-Contra as revenge?
Trumpgate?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote