The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#19,001
#19,001
hUTch2002 said:
Huh? You want Trump to dismantle the media? Why? I want the media to fairly report facts and provide evidence for all of us to make up our own minds. When opinion pieces come out, label them as such. From there we need opinions of all kinds, not one side or another. Canceling media is the kind of crap we’re headed towards and it’s the wrong path no matter who takes us down it.
Click to expand...
I want Trump to dismantle a dei, left-wing radical organization that is taxpayer funded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#19,004
#19,004
KanekoaTheGreat
@KanekoaTheGreat


CNN Senior Legal Analyst Describes How The Trump Conviction Was A Political Hit Job

1. "The judge donated money... in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations—to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation."

2. Alvin Bragg boasted on the campaign trail in an overwhelmingly Democrat county, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.”

3. "Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process."

4. "The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever."

5. The DA inflated misdemeanors past the statute of limitations and "electroshocked them back to life" by alleging the falsification of business records was committed 'with intent to commit another crime.'

6. "Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial."

7. "In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else."

8. "The Manhattan DA’s employees reportedly have called this the “Zombie Case” because of various legal infirmities, including its bizarre charging mechanism. But it’s better characterized as the Frankenstein Case, cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator."
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol and AirVol
#19,005
#19,005
85SugarVol said:
Well that’s wrong, but not the point.

I got a chuckle out of you declaring the way to unify - is to simply rid yourself of the other side 😂

Yea man, that’ll do it every time lol
Click to expand...
It's not wrong, but that's not the point.

I'm not advocating eliminating the two-party system, simply that one of the two do some much needed housecleaning.
 
#19,006
#19,006
BernardKingGOAT said:
Uh huh. He was specifically talking about abolishing the 2nd amendment, which isn't going anywhere. Fear mongering and ignorance of the highest order
Click to expand...
If the Dems ever get a majority on the SCOTUS again, the second amendment will be so judicially “reinterpreted ” as to be abolished for all practical purposes.
Same with the first (see “misinformation”)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#19,009
#19,009
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
It's anarchy to expect personal integrity from elected officials?

"Be not deceived, evil companions corrupt good morals."

I've no problem if that's how Bill and Donald want to live their lives, but they'll almost certainly suck as leaders without personal morals.
Click to expand...
relax, it was a joke.
 
#19,012
#19,012
luthervol said:
It's not wrong, but that's not the point.

I'm not advocating eliminating the two-party system, simply that one of the two do some much needed housecleaning.
Click to expand...
It is wrong, check the polling, still not the point.

You’re advocating for your opponent to be gutted - in the name of unity lol.

Wait… what definition of “unity” are you using?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, whodeycin85, hog88 and 2 others
#19,015
#19,015
volgr said:
Lincoln was going to allow slavery to continue, dumb dumb, if it meant keeping the Confederate States in the Union. They still left. There goes your illogical leftist talking point.

Want to take another swing with those soft non-calloused woman hands?
Click to expand...
So basically, you're agreeing with me that YOU prefer slavery had continued with all the benefits of reaping from the sweat of other people rather than your own? Again, thank you for being honest about that if nothing else. Most bigots and racists don't openly admit to being bigots and racists. Hooray for you!
 
#19,016
#19,016
SpaceCoastVol said:
relax, it was a joke.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is:

This whole mess could be avoided if Donald Trump wasn't as big of an adulterer as Bill Clinton.

Clinton's personal integrity was zero. It showed.

Donald Trump isn't fit to lead, just as Clinton wasn't fit to lead.

America can and should do better from the bottom up when it comes to choosing leadership.
 
#19,017
#19,017
WoodsmanVol said:
So basically, you're agreeing with me that YOU prefer slavery had continued with all the benefits of reaping from the sweat of other people rather than your own? Again, thank you for being honest about that if nothing else. Most bigots and racists don't openly admit to being bigots and racists. Hooray for you!
Click to expand...
LOL I'll bet your house doesn't have a single mirror.
 
#19,018
#19,018
WoodsmanVol said:
So basically, you're agreeing with me that YOU prefer slavery had continued with all the benefits of reaping from the sweat of other people rather than your own? Again, thank you for being honest about that if nothing else. Most bigots and racists don't openly admit to being bigots and racists. Hooray for you!
Click to expand...

I prefer Lincoln not shred the Constitution and destroy our Republic by invading sovereign States. None of that has anything to do with slavery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#19,019
#19,019
OrangeTsar said:
If the Dems ever get a majority on the SCOTUS again, the second amendment will be so judicially “reinterpreted ” as to be abolished for all practical purposes.
Same with the first (see “misinformation”)
Click to expand...
Yea… you still have the Right to Bear Arms.

-You can bear your registered arms down here at this government run facility.
-Just make sure to make an appointment.
-And make sure your taxes on em are current.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol and SpaceCoastVol
#19,020
#19,020
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
The sad thing is:

This whole mess could be avoided if Donald Trump wasn't as big of an adulterer as Bill Clinton.

Clinton's personal integrity was zero. It showed.

Donald Trump isn't fit to lead, just as Clinton wasn't fit to lead.

America can and should do better from the bottom up when it comes to choosing leadership.
Click to expand...
I don't care about his character, and while it is a nice thing to possess, it isn't essential to being a good leader. You and I will have to disagree on that one.

I want House, not Doogie Howser.

And Trump's personal life has nothing to do with the left's vendetta.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, LibertyVol and whodeycin85
#19,022
#19,022
85SugarVol said:
Yea… you still have the Right to Bear Arms.

-You can bear your registered arms down here at this government run facility.
-Just make sure to make an appointment.
-And make sure your taxes on em are current.
Click to expand...
And the redefinition of “arms” would be so absurd as to basically outlaw anything worse than a BB gun (and they will eventually outlaw those as well)
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol, whodeycin85, 85SugarVol and 1 other person
#19,024
#19,024
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
The sad thing is:

This whole mess could be avoided if Donald Trump wasn't as big of an adulterer as Bill Clinton.

Clinton's personal integrity was zero. It showed.

Donald Trump isn't fit to lead, just as Clinton wasn't fit to lead.

America can and should do better from the bottom up when it comes to choosing leadership.
Click to expand...
Say what you will about Clinton, he was the last President to actually make an effort to get along with the opposition party. He was quite liberal, but he knew when to move toward the center when the situation demanded it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, LibertyVol, MemphisVol77 and 2 others
#19,025
#19,025
SpaceCoastVol said:
I don't care about his character, and while it is a nice thing to possess, it isn't essential to being a good leader. You and I will have to disagree on that one.

I want House, not Doogie Howser.

And Trump's personal life has nothing to do with the left's vendetta.
Click to expand...
It's not a vendetta for me. A man who will lie to his wife straight in the eye, will certainly lie to me.

Both are awful humans. Why should I want to be led by a person who I KNOW 100% has zero integrity on the most personal level.

I'll cheat on my wife, but I'd never cheat on the people of the United States? You're dreaming.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top