Trump’s Second Term Would Be Even More Corrupt and Vindictive Than His First

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Many people simply remember they weren't struggling as badly as they are now. They look at who was in charge then, and who is now. Simple math, regardless of accuracy, which will push who they vote for.

 

This is what the democrat elitists cannot get through their head. You can claim that everything is better to your heart's content. BUT   for the average person who finds themselves putting something back on the shelf because they can't  afford that kind of grocery anymore and who has to make choices about which bill to pay and which bills to hold off on - they're just not going to buy your bullshit. 

biden borrowed and spent a ton of money to artificially inflate key numbers in the economy through spending. That makes the numbers look pretty decent, but the reality on the ground isn't that good and people know it.

And that's why he's losing to trump.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And that's why he's losing to trump.

You can't gaslight people into not voting for him, so best distract with a rushed case that will be no more than a slap on the wrists for him.

What they fail to realize, is this will only grow his base who whether right or wrong, feel the case was politically motivated. 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You can't gaslight people into not voting for him, so best distract with a rushed case that will be no more than a slap on the wrists for him.

What they fail to realize, is this will only grow his base who whether right or wrong, feel the case was politically motivated. 

Well, as I noted in the other thread it's true that this will drive many people into trump's hands but it is also true that it may very well seriously hamper his ability to campaign. Especially if there's any jail time or house arrest which I'm pretty sure there is going to be unless there's a huge public backlash right now.

And more importantly this allows them to try and turn the entire election into a discussion about whether or not trump is a bad person for being a criminal, rather than Biden's track record. If people talk about by this track record then he loses the election. And you can't talk about his future plans without talking about his track record. And let's face it most people think his future plans for the next 4 years involve him dying at some point.

If they can make this all about trump then Joe Biden can go hide in his basement the same way he did in the last election and that's how he won before. And if they can make that happen then this was a huge success.

[User]

I hope he is more vindictive than any of you fearmongers fear. 

After Biden has weaponized the DOJ as he has for the past several years, Democrats need to understand there are consequences.  

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, User said:

I hope he is more vindictive than any of you fearmongers fear. 

After Biden has weaponized the DOJ as he has for the past several years, Democrats need to understand there are consequences.  

I don't think they do understand that. What's worse, when those consequences come around they still won't understand. They will have no idea why the republicans are doing the same thing to them that they did to the republicans. It will be a baffling mystery and a shocking turn of events that has never happened before.

Like I said, their ability to self-delude is Olympic.

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, User said:

I hope he is more vindictive than any of you fearmongers fear. 

After Biden has weaponized the DOJ as he has for the past several years, Democrats need to understand there are consequences.  

Oh good, a wildly false premise to rationalize fascistic "vengeance."

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Oh good, a wildly false premise to rationalize fascistic "vengeance."

Generally speaking, what goes around comes around. If you punch somebody you might get punched back and there's no doubt the dems punch first

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Oh good, a wildly false premise to rationalize fascistic "vengeance."

Not false at all. Need look no further than how Garland vindictively went after people with the FACE act. Or how the DOJ is currently going after folks associated with the lawlessness on January 6th for misdemeanor-level offenses while ignoring other violent criminals in left-leaning lawless protests.

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, User said:

Not false at all. Need look no further than how Garland vindictively went after people with the FACE act. Or how the DOJ is currently going after folks associated with the lawlessness on January 6th for misdemeanor-level offenses while ignoring other violent criminals in left-leaning lawless protests.

Even the original trump investigation. Almost all of the people arrested that were associated with trump were charged with lying to the FBI, which the FBI admitted they were going to attempt to do. So they trick people into lying and then charge them. They weren't charged with crimes outside of that particular crime, meaning they never actually did anything wrong in the real world. They're only Crime was supposedly lying to the FBI, which is very odd considering none of the things that they lied about were actually criminal. The FBI is expert in trapping people into giving false testimony when they want to and one FBI agent actually asked if that was the goal here.

[Nationalist]

Hey Tweenkies.

Welcome to San Francisco.

https://www.ktvu.com/video/1467262

*giggle*

[Hodad]

10 hours ago, User said:

Not false at all. Need look no further than how Garland vindictively went after people with the FACE act. Or how the DOJ is currently going after folks associated with the lawlessness on January 6th for misdemeanor-level offenses while ignoring other violent criminals in left-leaning lawless protests.

"Weaponized DoJ" is an alt-right meme, not a reality. The Trump DoJ probably prosecuted more Trump cronies than the Biden DoJ. Meanwhile, the Biden DoJ is not shy about prosecuting democratic lawbreakers. Trump pretends to be unfairly persecuted, but the simple fact is that he's always been a crook and he surrounded himself with similarly crooked people. -- And the decent people he hired bailed or were forced out. 

This nonsense about FACE and the false claim that left-leaning protesters are not arrested or prosecuted is another made-up red herring. And the people who attacked the capitol will always get stricter scrutiny than some random vandals. They attacked our system of government, so the government is paying attention. In the same way that terrorists are treated more harshly than basic murderers. 

[User]

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

"Weaponized DoJ" is an alt-right meme, not a reality. The Trump DoJ probably prosecuted more Trump cronies than the Biden DoJ. Meanwhile, the Biden DoJ is not shy about prosecuting democratic lawbreakers. Trump pretends to be unfairly persecuted, but the simple fact is that he's always been a crook and he surrounded himself with similarly crooked people. -- And the decent people he hired bailed or were forced out. 

This nonsense about FACE and the false claim that left-leaning protesters are not arrested or prosecuted is another made-up red herring. And the people who attacked the capitol will always get stricter scrutiny than some random vandals. They attacked our system of government, so the government is paying attention. In the same way that terrorists are treated more harshly than basic murderers. 

I just gave you two examples of this reality. 

The Biden DOJ dredged up a case that had already been dropped and investigated by local authorities to try to go after an old Catholic man. They sent an armed FBI team to his home to arrest him in front of his family with guns drawn when his lawyers had long ago told the DOJ he would gladly surrender to them if they decided to push forward with any actions to prosecute him. 

They had all the evidence and facts up to that point which showed it was the Abortion clinic goon that went across the street to instigate a confrontation with him and his son and only after he continually assaulted his son did he push the goon away. 

The Biden DOJ ignored all this, they were on a mission to use the FACE act to target abortion clinic protestors to send a message. 

The folks on J6 who didn't do anything more than wander around and leave did not attack anything or anyone. 

[reason10]

On 6/7/2024 at 1:06 PM, robosmith said:

Trump’s Second Term Would Be Even More Corrupt and Vindictive Than His First

This is the best one I've seen.

 

Fortunately it's MOSTLY only the MAGA CULT which can't see the truth.

 

His second term will be better for the country than ANY  DemoNazi president.

Also, there's no way his administration could have been as AWFUL as the unelected Pedphile we've had to put up with for the past three years.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, User said:

I just gave you two examples of this reality. 

The Biden DOJ dredged up a case that had already been dropped and investigated by local authorities to try to go after an old Catholic man. They sent an armed FBI team to his home to arrest him in front of his family with guns drawn when his lawyers had long ago told the DOJ he would gladly surrender to them if they decided to push forward with any actions to prosecute him. 

They had all the evidence and facts up to that point which showed it was the Abortion clinic goon that went across the street to instigate a confrontation with him and his son and only after he continually assaulted his son did he push the goon away. 

The Biden DOJ ignored all this, they were on a mission to use the FACE act to target abortion clinic protestors to send a message. 

The folks on J6 who didn't do anything more than wander around and leave did not attack anything or anyone. 

Yes, terrible, terrible examples. And your version of the Houck story is pure fiction. You have almost all of it backward.

• Houck is NOT an "old man." He's in his 40s.
• The person you call a "goon" (lol)--who Mark Houck assaulted-- is actually an old man-- a 72 year-old grandfather.
• The 72-year old did NOT assault Houck's son -- I assume you invented that for vividness?
• And, finally, Mark Houck can go fark himself. If he doesn't want his young son exposed to tense verbal exchanges and "vulgar language" he should stop bringing the boy along on his missions to harass women outside of Planned Parenthood. If you don't want your kid in that situation, don't deliberately put them in that situation over and over again. 

And yes, for any decent people playing along at home, when you escalate a verbal exchange to a physical assault of a senior citizen, you should be arrested and tried. Whether the jury lets him off the hook or not, trial was the right thing to do.

[robosmith]

22 hours ago, User said:

I hope he is more vindictive than any of you fearmongers fear. 

After Biden has weaponized the DOJ as he has for the past several years, Democrats need to understand there are consequences.  

You are the fearmonger and LIAR ^here.

Biden has not directed the DoJ to do anything; certainly you have NO EVIDENCE he has.

[robosmith]

14 hours ago, User said:

Not false at all. Need look no further than how Garland vindictively went after people with the FACE act. Or how the DOJ is currently going after folks associated with the lawlessness on January 6th for misdemeanor-level offenses while ignoring other violent criminals in left-leaning lawless protests.

Do you not know that violence in the Capitol is Federal crimes and that in cities across the nation is mostly state and LOCAL? LMAO

Thanks for demonstrating your IGNORANCE; Garland is just doing HIS JOB.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, User said:

I just gave you two examples of this reality. 

The Biden DOJ dredged up a case that had already been dropped and investigated by local authorities to try to go after an old Catholic man. They sent an armed FBI team to his home to arrest him in front of his family with guns drawn when his lawyers had long ago told the DOJ he would gladly surrender to them if they decided to push forward with any actions to prosecute him. 

They had all the evidence and facts up to that point which showed it was the Abortion clinic goon that went across the street to instigate a confrontation with him and his son and only after he continually assaulted his son did he push the goon away. 

The Biden DOJ ignored all this, they were on a mission to use the FACE act to target abortion clinic protestors to send a message. 

The folks on J6 who didn't do anything more than wander around and leave did not attack anything or anyone. 

They broke down a door to enter the House floor looking for Pence to HANG HIM on the gallows they constructed. 

IOW, you're LYING.

[User]

30 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, terrible, terrible examples. And your version of the Houck story is pure fiction. You have almost all of it backward.

It is simply amazing the lengths you will go to to argue the most obviously absurdly wrong points. 

30 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Houck is NOT an "old man." He's in his 40s.

Old is subjective... not going to quibble over someone almost 50 years old being called "old" or not. 

31 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The person you call a "goon" (lol)--who Mark Houck assaulted-- is actually an old man-- a 72 year-old grandfather.

He was a goon. He had a history of instigating crap. Mark Houch was across the street and that goon was the one who went out of his way to cross the street to instigate crap with them. 

32 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The 72-year old did NOT assault Houck's son -- I assume you invented that for vividness?

No, the legal definition behind assault is literally what he did. He got in their faces, their personal space, to verbally insult them, including his 12 year old son. 

35 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And, finally, Mark Houck can go fark himself. If he doesn't want his young son exposed to tense verbal exchanges and "vulgar language" he should stop bringing the boy along on his missions to harass women outside of Planned Parenthood. If you don't want your kid in that situation, don't deliberately put them in that situation over and over again. 

Of course, you don't care... and this is EXACTLY why I cheer on Trump being vindictive because that is exactly what you are doing here.

They were across the street protesting, they were not harassing anyone. The goon had to come across the street to confront them. 

37 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And yes, for any decent people playing along at home, when you escalate a verbal exchange to a physical assault of a senior citizen, you should be arrested and tried. Whether the jury lets him off the hook or not, trial was the right thing to do.

Decent people do not go across the street to verbally accost and assault 12-year-old kids peacefully protesting. The father was investigated by local authorities and they found his claims to be valid and there is video of it. He was only shoving that goon to keep him from continuing to accost his son. That is not a federal crime. The FACE act deals with obstructing access to the abortion clinic. Hell, even if Mark did really wrongly attack the goon, he could have beaten him half to death on the ground... that has nothing to do with the FACE act. They were across the street, nothing they were doing there was obstructing access to the abortion clinic. That is precisely why using the FACE act to go after him, even after local authorities investigations cleared him, was a vindictive use of the DOJ, on top of the fact they sent the FBI to arrest him at his home. This is precisely why we need Trump to go after folks on the left the same way, because maybe then you will get it. 

 

[User]

40 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You are the fearmonger and LIAR ^here.

Biden has not directed the DoJ to do anything; certainly you have NO EVIDENCE he has.

Directed is your word, not mine. Biden appointed Garland, he doesn't have to direct him to do every little thing, he certainly isn't stopping them either. Biden sets the tone, Biden hires these people. Biden is responsible for what is going on. 

[User]

38 minutes ago, robosmith said:

They broke down a door to enter the House floor looking for Pence to HANG HIM on the gallows they constructed. 

IOW, you're LYING.

Not everyone did that. Your being ignorant or dishonest of this fact doesn't make me a liar. This is exactly my point. The folks who merely wandered around and left are being maliciously persecuted. The DOJ is trumping up charges to go after folks. 

 

43 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Do you not know that violence in the Capitol is Federal crimes and that in cities across the nation is mostly state and LOCAL? LMAO

Thanks for demonstrating your IGNORANCE; Garland is just doing HIS JOB.

Can you not read? I very specifically said "misdemeanor-level offenses", that is not violence. 

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, User said:

It is simply amazing the lengths you will go to to argue the most obviously absurdly wrong points. 

Old is subjective... not going to quibble over someone almost 50 years old being called "old" or not. 

 

Sure. Pretending that it makes sense to call someone in their 40s and "old man" is obviously way more reasonable than admitting you just had the facts wrong.👍

Quote

He was a goon. He had a history of instigating crap. Mark Houch was across the street and that goon was the one who went out of his way to cross the street to instigate crap with them. 

Again, you have the facts wrong. Houck and his kid were just up the block from the doors of Planned Parenthood. No street crossing required. He can't heckle women effectively from across the street, after all. 🙄

Quote

No, the legal definition behind assault is literally what he did. He got in their faces, their personal space, to verbally insult them, including his 12 year old son. 

False on two counts. He was not "in their faces." In fact, Houck came back to Love to finally shove the actual old man to the ground. You can watch the video. Feel free to enjoy Houck's lawyer's ridiculous color commentary. Won't change the actual footage of what happened. 

 

And your comment is also false because talking to someone, at someone or near someone is NOT the legal definition of assault. You simply made that up. That's why you can't cite the law-- PA or Federal. 

Love didn't touch or physically threaten anyone. Houck, a bully and a menace, decided to make it physical. Perhaps he was tired of verbally accosting women and looking to let off a little steam. 🙄 

Quote

Of course, you don't care... and this is EXACTLY why I cheer on Trump being vindictive because that is exactly what you are doing here.

Bullshit. I DO care. Houck has become something of a folk hero in conservative circles, but his actions are indefensible. He physically assaulted an (actual) old man--twice. And his excuse is that he didn't like the language--the speech--his victim was using? GTFO. The man drove two hours--regularly--to harass people with his speech that they surely didn't want to hear. It's not an excuse for assault.

He absolutely should have been arrested and he absolutely should have faced trial. That's not a question. Perhaps it should have been for simple assault rather than the FACE act, but the FACE act was triggered because the man he assaulted was an escort for women trying to access the facility. --Think about that for a moment, these women need an escort just to feel safe while trying to access health care, because of people like Houck.

 

Quote

They were across the street protesting, they were not harassing anyone. The goon had to come across the street to confront them. 

I don't know where you're getting--or cooking up--this information, but, again, Houck was not across the street from Planned Parenthood. He was just up the sidewalk from the gates where the escorts operate. 

And, again, if you think crossing the street to seek out conflict would have been a big deal, then you must be incensed at Houck for regularly driving two hours to verbally accost people. 🙄
 

Quote

 

Decent people do not go across the street to verbally accost and assault 12-year-old kids peacefully protesting.

 

 

Do decent people drive two hours--with a child in tow--to harass women who are just trying to access health care? No, that's pretty shitty. 

 

Quote

The father was investigated by local authorities and they found his claims to be valid and there is video of it. He was only shoving that goon to keep him from continuing to accost his son. That is not a federal crime.

Noooope. Assault is, indeed, a federal crime.  You are not allowed to attack someone for talking to you and saying things you don't like. My goodness, can you imagine? Protests and counterprotests would just be a legally permissible free-for-all.

Quote

The FACE act deals with obstructing access to the abortion clinic. Hell, even if Mark did really wrongly attack the goon, he could have beaten him half to death on the ground... that has nothing to do with the FACE act.

Where do you get this stuff? Like, YouTube comments? The FACE act goes beyond physically blocking access.

(1)by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;

 

Quote

They were across the street, nothing they were doing there was obstructing access to the abortion clinic. That is precisely why using the FACE act to go after him, even after local authorities investigations cleared him, was a vindictive use of the DOJ, on top of the fact they sent the FBI to arrest him at his home. This is precisely why we need Trump to go after folks on the left the same way, because maybe then you will get it. 

False, again, for multiple reasons. Houck wasn't across the street, but rather just up the sidewalk. And, of course, local authorities weren't going to charge him with FACE violations, so that's left to the feds. 

Again, I don't know the full rationale for charging with FACE rather than assault, but let's not pretend that Houck was the victim here. He's not a victim or a hero. Just a bully who can dish out words but can't take 'em. He assaulted an (actual) old man, and it was right to arrest and try him, even if the jury acquitted.

[User]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Again, you have the facts wrong. Houck and his kid were just up the block from the doors of Planned Parenthood. No street crossing required. He can't heckle women effectively from across the street, after all. 🙄

Yes, I appear to be wrong about crossing the street, but it was still the goon who went out of his way to accost Mike and his son. 

You completely ignore the main point being made here. 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

False on two counts. He was not "in their faces." In fact, Houck came back to Love to finally shove the actual old man to the ground. You can watch the video. Feel free to enjoy Houck's lawyer's ridiculous color commentary. Won't change the actual footage of what happened. 

That is not false at all. You seem to be one of the many people who don't grasp the difference between assault and battery. Battery is the typical legal term for physically harming someone. You do not need to harm someone to assault them physically. 

You can find many links to lawyers explaining this:

https://www.lomtl.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-between-assault-and-battery/

It was the goon who went over to them, repeatedly. He instigated this. That is on the video. 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

And your comment is also false because talking to someone, at someone or near someone is NOT the legal definition of assault. You simply made that up. That's why you can't cite the law-- PA or Federal. 

Love didn't touch or physically threaten anyone. Houck, a bully and a menace, decided to make it physical. Perhaps he was tired of verbally accosting women and looking to let off a little steam. 🙄 

Houck was standing on the corner, it was the goon who went over to them to instigate this and repeatedly did so. It was only after he kept coming back to try to keep accosting his son was he shoved. 

If you say crap to someones child, accosting them, you don't get to pretend like you are the victim when a parent protects their child. 
 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Do decent people drive two hours--with a child in tow--to harass women who are just trying to access health care? No, that's pretty shitty. 

I am not interested in your sick defense of killing 900,000 babies every year. That is pretty shitty. 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Noooope. Assault is, indeed, a federal crime.  You are not allowed to attack someone for talking to you and saying things you don't like. My goodness, can you imagine? Protests and counterprotests would just be a legally permissible free-for-all.

Yes, assault can be a federal offense depending on who you are assaulting and under what circumstances... he was not charged with assault. He was being vindictively prosecuted for a violation of the FACE act. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Where do you get this stuff? Like, YouTube comments? The FACE act goes beyond physically blocking access.

Yes, all of what you cited has to do with interfering with access to an abortion provider. Which... he was not doing. The goon had to walk over to them and keep coming back to them, that has nothing to do with trying to interfere with someones access to an abortion. That is the point. That is the point you keep ignoring here. That is the only point that matters in why this was a vindictive prosecution. 

Where was Houck violating the FACE act? He was not. The DOJ had to stretch this to try to get him which is why it took the jury something like an hour to find him innocent. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Again, I don't know the full rationale for charging with FACE rather than assault, but let's not pretend that Houck was the victim here. He's not a victim or a hero. Just a bully who can dish out words but can't take 'em. He assaulted an (actual) old man, and it was right to arrest and try him, even if the jury acquitted.

I am not pretending anything. He was the victim. The DOJ sent armed guns drawn FBI agents to arrest him at his home, when they knew he would willingly turn himself in. It was a vindictive show of force. 

He was never charged for assaulting that goon because all the local investigations watched what happened and seen that it was the goon who instigated this. 

The DOJ was not going after him for assault, they were going after him for violating the FACE act, which he clearly didn't do. 

[Hodad]

11 hours ago, User said:

Yes, I appear to be wrong about crossing the street, but it was still the goon who went out of his way to accost Mike and his son. 

The guy who drove hours out of his way to accost women was accosted by the guy who escorts the women? Cry me a river. Not to mention that Houck had already shoved Love earlier in the day.

Quote

That is not false at all. You seem to be one of the many people who don't grasp the difference between assault and battery. Battery is the typical legal term for physically harming someone. You do not need to harm someone to assault them physically. 

You can find many links to lawyers explaining this:

https://www.lomtl.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-between-assault-and-battery/

Nice dodge. What we have here is a tacit admission that you were, again, wrong about the facts. To recap:

1. You are incorrect. Talking to someone is NOT assault, regardless of what you are saying. There was no physical threat whatsoever.

2. You cannot cite PA or Federal law to support your bogus claim that Love "assaulted" the Houcks by talking to them. 

Quote

It was the goon who went over to them, repeatedly. He instigated this. That is on the video. 

Houck was standing on the corner, it was the goon who went over to them to instigate this and repeatedly did so. It was only after he kept coming back to try to keep accosting his son was he shoved. 

If you say crap to someones child, accosting them, you don't get to pretend like you are the victim when a parent protects their child. 
 

Again, Houck drove hours, dragging his kid along, to talk at people going into the clinic. To you, that's not instigation. But when the escort walks a few steps up the sidewalk to talk at Houck, that's instigation. lol 

Houck can say whatever he wants to emotionally vulnerable women seeking medical care, but gods forbid his son have to hear an exchange of unpleasantries! You guys are just classic bullies. Can dish it out, but can't take it. 

Quote

Yes, assault can be a federal offense depending on who you are assaulting and under what circumstances... he was not charged with assault. He was being vindictively prosecuted for a violation of the FACE act. 

 

Nothing vindictive about it. Houck assaulted a senior citizen who, as an escort at planned parenthood, is protected by the FACE act. 

Quote

Yes, all of what you cited has to do with interfering with access to an abortion provider. Which... he was not doing. The goon had to walk over to them and keep coming back to them, that has nothing to do with trying to interfere with someones access to an abortion. That is the point. That is the point you keep ignoring here. That is the only point that matters in why this was a vindictive prosecution. 

Where was Houck violating the FACE act? He was not. The DOJ had to stretch this to try to get him which is why it took the jury something like an hour to find him innocent. 

Really? You need me to spell it out in more detail than a direct quote of a few simple sentences? We really need to "debate" whether shoving and injuring an old man working for a reproductive healthcare provider qualifies as injuring and intimidating a person working to provide reproductive healthcare? Not to mention the intimidation of anyone seeking care who watched Houck assault the escort designated to help keep patients safe.  What's to debate? Jeebus, man.

And, again, your "alternative facts" are not correct. The jury did not find him "innocent" after an hour. They were deadlocked at the end of the first day of deliberations and eventually called in an alternate juror on day 2 in order to get to an acquittal. 

Quote

I am not pretending anything. He was the victim. The DOJ sent armed guns drawn FBI agents to arrest him at his home, when they knew he would willingly turn himself in. It was a vindictive show of force. 
 

The FBI tells a different story, but regardless, there is nothing unfair about arresting someone at their home. If you don't want to be embarrassed by being arrested, don't shove old men.

Quote

He was never charged for assaulting that goon because all the local investigations watched what happened and seen that it was the goon who instigated this. 
 

Lol. Sure, that was it. I'm sure you can point to the law that says it's okay to assault someone if they "instigate" it by saying something you don't like. 🤪

[User]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The guy who drove hours out of his way to accost women was accosted by the guy who escorts the women? Cry me a river. Not to mention that Houck had already shoved Love earlier in the day.

He stood on the corner to protest as he is allowed to do. He did not "accost" women in that he approached them to stop them or interfere with them, which would have been a violation of the FACE act. 

Remember, that is the issue here. The government vindictively went after him for violating the FACE act. 

That fact that you are here mocking Houck and cheering this on is EXACTLY why I cheer on Trump doing the same thing to the political left. You all clearly need a lesson. 

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Nice dodge. What we have here is a tacit admission that you were, again, wrong about the facts. To recap:

1. You are incorrect. Talking to someone is NOT assault, regardless of what you are saying. There was no physical threat whatsoever.

2. You cannot cite PA or Federal law to support your bogus claim that Love "assaulted" the Houcks by talking to them. 

No dodge at all. The goon was not merely talking to them, assault IS threatening behavior and fighting words. When he continued to try to approach his son, that can be considered assault. 

You trying to characterize what the goon did as merely talking to them is pure dishonest spin. 

I am not claiming he violated federal law or any specific PA law, only using the generic description of what constitutes assault.

18 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Can dish it out, but can't take it. 

 So here you are cheering on some goon saying trash to a child, all because how dare his dad think it is wrong to kill babies. Just like you support "protestors" violating the laws out in the streets, do not be surprise then when you cheer on a goon doing this to a 12 year old when the father stops them. That doesn't make him the bully here. 
 

25 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Nothing vindictive about it. Houck assaulted a senior citizen who, as an escort at planned parenthood, is protected by the FACE act. 

No, that is not how the FACE act works at all. The goon doesn't get to go instigate crap as if he has some immunity. The FACE act doesn't protect him, it protects the access to the abortion provider. Once the goon goes out of his way to go instigate crap, that is on him. 
 

27 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Really? You need me to spell it out in more detail than a direct quote of a few simple sentences? We really need to "debate" whether shoving and injuring an old man working for a reproductive healthcare provider qualifies as injuring and intimidating a person working to provide reproductive healthcare? Not to mention the intimidation of anyone seeking care who watched Houck assault the escort designated to help keep patients safe.  What's to debate? Jeebus, man.

And, again, your "alternative facts" are not correct. The jury did not find him "innocent" after an hour. They were deadlocked at the end of the first day of deliberations and eventually called in an alternate juror on day 2 in order to get to an acquittal. 

Where are you getting your information on the Jury?

"Now the family’s ordeal is finally put to rest after the jury took about an hour to find him not guilty. "

https://www.foxnews.com/media/pro-life-activist-mark-houck-shocking-planned-parenthood-encounter-acquittal

Yes, clearly we need a debate here that merely shoving the goon who came over to instigate crap was not a violation of the FACE act. That did nothing to stop or interfere with any women getting access to an abortion nor was it intended to. 

You have yet to explain how it did and the government clearly failed to do so either. 

30 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The FBI tells a different story, but regardless, there is nothing unfair about arresting someone at their home. If you don't want to be embarrassed by being arrested, don't shove old men.

The FBI doesn't tell anything specific at all, they only vaguely deny the characterizations of the arrest. They do not deny or confirm how many agents they sent, or if they had their guns drawn or not...

The fact is that he had long volunteered to turn himself in to them. There was no need for such a show of force for an arrest other than the fact that the DOJ was vindictively sending a message. The process is the punishment. 

Yet again, you cheer this on as you do, is EXACTLY why I cheer on Trump doing the same vindictive crap to the left. 

33 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Lol. Sure, that was it. I'm sure you can point to the law that says it's okay to assault someone if they "instigate" it by saying something you don't like. 🤪

Again, the issue isn't if you think it is OK to shove some goon who is accosting a child or not... it is that such actions have nothing to do with the FACE act. Such actions were already investigated by local authorities and they did not find enough evidence to say it was illegal to push him because he was the one instigating something with a child. 

The issue is the governments vindictive use of force here to go after someone with the FACE act. 

Turn about is fair play and I hope Trump unleashes the DOJ on the left. 

[impartialobserver]

On 6/7/2024 at 1:09 PM, Nationalist said:

But he will hound you never the less. I wonder how many votes people like robo-bot cost the Democrats?

The internet allows types like him (on both sides) to not only exist but thrive.