Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You didn't listen to Trump's definition of a dictator. That is STOOOOPID. ;)

I've proven that you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Now go take your pills. 

Dude, 

The courts are corrupt. It's a political witch hunt, nothing more. 

No, you’re just making stuff up like a loony.

Your defense of 200 criminals is that the courts are corrupt.  Can you point to any exculpatory evidence, or any evidence presented at trial which was false?  
 

@reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Rebound said:

No, you’re just making stuff up like a loony.

Your defense of 200 criminals is that the courts are corrupt.  Can you point to any exculpatory evidence, or any evidence presented at trial which was false?  
 

Democrats will stop at nothing to stamp out any trace of MAGA and Donald Trump.

You f*ckers are never to be trusted again. I foresee a radical shift to the Right within your party if only for survival's sake. 

Posted

as i've pointed out in another thread... the reason Trump is attempting to delay all of this suddenly get very real!

with the other cases he's been involved with he had easy excuses "i never met her and she isn't my type", "i never saw the accounting information and numbers hurt my head".

but this stuff! the recorded arguments were being played constantly on various media yesterday... they are damning and they make Trump look unhinged! all Biden has to do is blanket the airwaves during the general election with this audio and its over fro Trump!

in the meantime... Trump just trying to enjoy his golden years!

Trump: It would be hard to enjoy ‘golden years’ of retirement without immunity

Posted
5 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Democrats will stop at nothing to stamp out any trace of MAGA and Donald Trump.

You f*ckers are never to be trusted again. I foresee a radical shift to the Right within your party if only for survival's sake. 

so, no exculpatory evidence then...

Posted
42 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Except perhaps his TRUE MOTIVES.

I was married to a narssissist. Like proper personality disorder bad.

Every guy who dated her, ran. She was supermodel beautiful. Enough said.

He literally is the male version of her.

So, mirroring, gaslighting. When all else fails, waterworks. He just has tantrums.

Built negative advocates. So just like Trump, paint a dire image of anyone not fully loyal and submissive to him and are master manipulators so can turn them against you in the snap of a finger.

Is so good at manipulating  could make you apologize for them choosing to cheat on you.

Or in Trump's case, make you legit feel you may have a weak case, after his gasligting until looking at the evidence let's you know he is toast.

 

Posted
16 minutes ago, godzilla said:

thats not exculpatory evidence for any of the J6 defendants.

Sure it is. You a$$holes have used your bullshit take on the 14th Amendment to convict people of insurrection who never committed insurrection. Once the SCOTUS is finally forced to make a determination, all those people you sunk your claws into will be proven innocent.  

Posted
1 minute ago, Deluge said:

Sure it is. You a$$holes have used your bullshit take on the 14th Amendment to convict people of insurrection who never committed insurrection. Once the SCOTUS is finally forced to make a determination, all those people you sunk your claws into will be proven innocent.  

you're getting very confused. none of the J6 convictions had anything to do with the 14th Amendment. if SCOTUS rules in Trumps favour on the 14th Amendment then nothing changes for J6 convictions.

still waiting for that exculpatory evidence to overturn the J6 convictions.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Democrats will stop at nothing to stamp out any trace of MAGA and Donald Trump.

You f*ckers are never to be trusted again. I foresee a radical shift to the Right within your party if only for survival's sake. 

So you have no evidence whatsoever. Got it. 

  • Like 1

@reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”

 

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, godzilla said:

you're getting very confused. none of the J6 convictions had anything to do with the 14th Amendment. if SCOTUS rules in Trumps favour on the 14th Amendment then nothing changes for J6 convictions.

still waiting for that exculpatory evidence to overturn the J6 convictions.

No, you're the one who's confused, and you're also pissed off. You've seen that the Trump accusations of insurrection don't hold water and out of TDS fueled frustration you've turned to the "J6 convictions" to help soothe your fevered brain. 

Now admittedly, I haven't looked into the cases nearly as much as you perverts have, and that's to be expected given that I'm not saddled with Trump Derangement Syndrome. I know you're desperate for a win here, but it's going to take some time to familiarize with the cases. You're waving the question of "exculpatory evidence" around like a banner of wokeness, but you don't take the time to ask me who I think might be innocent or guilty, and that's going to take a little research, which I will do going forward. 

Edited by Deluge
  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

I was married to a narssissist. Like proper personality disorder bad.

Every guy who dated her, ran. She was supermodel beautiful. Enough said.

He literally is the male version of her.

So, mirroring, gaslighting. When all else fails, waterworks. He just has tantrums.

Built negative advocates. So just like Trump, paint a dire image of anyone not fully loyal and submissive to him and are master manipulators so can turn them against you in the snap of a finger.

Is so good at manipulating  could make you apologize for them choosing to cheat on you.

Or in Trump's case, make you legit feel you may have a weak case, after his gasligting until looking at the evidence let's you know he is toast.

 

Trump may have been good looking many years ago. No more

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

How much is Trumpco paying you for your incessant BULLSHIT. 

It seems you're on the job 24/7. 🤮

He pays in kept campaign promises which he's pretty f*cking good at. ;)

How's YOUR president doing with his promises? Of course, it's easier to tear sh*t down the build things up, so maybe he's at pretty good clip too! 

Edited by Deluge
Posted
18 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

US president could have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, Trump’s lawyer argues

*********snip********

Former president Donald Trump’s lawyer argued that presidential immunity would cover the U.S. president ordering political rivals to be assassinated by SEAL Team Six. 

******snip********

One of the judges asked Sauer: “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

Sauer responded: “If he were impeached and convicted first... there is a political process that would have to occur.”

Does: “If he were impeached and convicted first... there is a political process that would have to occur” equal: "As POTUS, he can order an assassination on whomever he wants for no good reason at all and he will be completely immune to prosecution for the rest of his life"? 

It seems to me that saying "If he were impeached and convicted first" means that there actually is a path to him being criminally prosecuted, wouldn't you agree? 

Is it so unlikely that a president could do such a thing? During the civil war, for example, there may have been an opportunity for the POTUS to snuff someone, preventing a large battle from occurring. Killing that guy might spare hundreds of other lives, and the destruction of a community. Might be worth it, no?

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Ex-Canadian since April 2025

Posted
1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Does: “If he were impeached and convicted first... there is a political process that would have to occur” equal: "As POTUS, he can order an assassination on whomever he wants for no good reason at all and he will be completely immune to prosecution for the rest of his life"? 

It seems to me that saying "If he were impeached and convicted first" means that there actually is a path to him being criminally prosecuted, wouldn't you agree? 

Is it so unlikely that a president could do such a thing? During the civil war, for example, there may have been an opportunity for the POTUS to snuff someone, preventing a large battle from occurring. Killing that guy might spare hundreds of other lives, and the destruction of a community. Might be worth it, no?

Well, no. Because the President could resign the day before a Senate vote, if it came to that.

  • Like 2

@reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Deluge said:

He pays in kept campaign promises which he's pretty f*cking good at. ;)

How's YOUR president doing with his promises? Of course, it's easier to tear sh*t down the build things up, so maybe he's at pretty good clip too! 

Biden SIGNED the infrastructure Act that Trump continually PROMISED but NEVER DELIVERED.

Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal

With Trump "infrastructure week" was nothing but a RUNNING JOKE.

Posted
1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Well, no. Because the President could resign the day before a Senate vote, if it came to that.

🤣

That's not what Trump's lawyer said now, you said that, and it's stupid. 

If we're keeping score:

  1. Trump's lawyer said something sensible and true
  2. Some dolts at an obscure website either misinterpreted/misunderstood it and made a false statement about it, or they lied about it because they knew that they could suck in some leftards
  3. Beave believed the garbage that they spewed and posted it here
  4. I pointed out the truth of the matter in a clear, concise manner
  5. You made a nonsensical comment about it all

We're done here, Rebound. Don't make me get the wooden spoon.

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Ex-Canadian since April 2025

Posted
19 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

🤣

That's not what Trump's lawyer said now, you said that, and it's stupid. 

If we're keeping score:

  1. Trump's lawyer said something sensible and true
  2. Some dolts at an obscure website either misinterpreted/misunderstood it and made a false statement about it, or they lied about it because they knew that they could suck in some leftards
  3. Beave believed the garbage that they spewed and posted it here
  4. I pointed out the truth of the matter in a clear, concise manner
  5. You made a nonsensical comment about it all

We're done here, Rebound. Don't make me get the wooden spoon.

What Trump’s lawyer said was neither sensible nor was it true.  What he said was the only excuse he could think of to justify the absurd. 
The Constitution does not say that the President is immune from criminal prosecution unless convicted by impeachment. 

What’s more, Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump could not be convicted by the Senate because he was no longer President, and several Senators voted for his acquittal for that very reason. Thus, Trump’s logic says that if a crime is undetected until after the President leaves office, or if the President resigns one day before the Senate votes to convict, then he cannot be charged with criminal offenses.  
 

This would create a unique system of justice in which one person cannot be tried for crimes the same as anyone else. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

@reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Well, no. Because the President could resign the day before a Senate vote, if it came to that.

No it's been determined that an impeachment process can happen after the person left office. Trump's second impeachment began after he'd left office.

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Posted
54 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

🤣

That's not what Trump's lawyer said now, you said that, and it's stupid. 

If we're keeping score:

  1. Trump's lawyer said something sensible and true
  2. Some dolts at an obscure website either misinterpreted/misunderstood it and made a false statement about it, or they lied about it because they knew that they could suck in some leftards
  3. Beave believed the garbage that they spewed and posted it here
  4. I pointed out the truth of the matter in a clear, concise manner
  5. You made a nonsensical comment about it all

We're done here, Rebound. Don't make me get the wooden spoon.

One again our resident Konstitooshunal skolar and high school dropout has no idea what he’s talking about. But what would you expect from the guy who also thought that the konstitooshun would allow the Vice President on Jan 6 to simply ignore the election results and unilaterally decree himself to be the winner. 

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,906
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Henry Blackstone
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Doowangle earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Doowangle earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dave L earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Ana Silva earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...