Chrissy1979 Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 It was a strategy his campaign used. But I agree that Trump is a very poor leader with no control over anything. He was in power and kicked out of office by a fake election he saw coming months beforehand. No president was ever so weak! 😂 1 1 Quote
robosmith Posted October 3, 2024 Author Report Posted October 3, 2024 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: "We got 'im now! Smith will bury Orangemanbad finally!" Lol...you freaks are truly pathetic. Pathetic is YOU defending CRIMES. You sound like a criminal who has no respect for the law. 1 Quote
robosmith Posted October 3, 2024 Author Report Posted October 3, 2024 1 hour ago, Deluge said: Smart voters know this is politically charged bullshit - won't change a thing. You know, you flag burning psychopaths may want to start packing your bags now. NO "smart voters" will LISTEN to YOUR never ending spew of BULLSHIT. Quote
robosmith Posted October 3, 2024 Author Report Posted October 3, 2024 41 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: So some lawyer says something in a conversation that Trump doesn't hear, isn't briefed and in no way has any knowledge of, but is responsible for what the guy said? Bullshit. Hate to break it to you, but management is responsible for what their employees do, esp when they KNOW ABOUT IT and don't do ANYTHING to STOP IT. Quote
Chrissy1979 Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 15 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Wow. Released in October of an election year? Yeah, nothing suspect here. What is damning about this? It proves the Biden administration is using banana republic style tactics. The Jan. 6 committee also produced evidence the Trump campaign (I e., Roger Stone) colluded with the Proud Boys to cause the riot in order to delay the certification, and it wasn't in an election year. Evidence is evidence, and the evidence doesn't support you. Quote
Rebound Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 14 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: The only way to beat a banana republic is to unseat the dictator. They delayed to get Trump into office so these organizations could be reformed. Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming immunity. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but it was the LAST case of the season. Then, it was the LAST ruling they issued. So who's the foot-dragger? MAGA. Oh, and why was all of this released? Because Trump demanded evidence that his actions were not "official Presidential acts." So Jack Smith obliged him. TRUMP is the one who's delayed this trial. 1 Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
CdnFox Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 1 hour ago, Rebound said: The President was impeached for these crimes, and at his impeachment trial, several Senators said they would not vote to impeach because he was no longer President, but he should instead be tried by a court of law. And they were wrong. That happens. This case now clarifies how that works. Remember when you and robo and some others were INSISTING!!!! it was ABSOLUTELY TRUE BEYOND ANY DOUBT!!!! That the states were REQUIRED BY LAWWWWW!!!!!! To keep trump off the ballots because "insurrection"? And the judges doing it insisted it too? Turned out they were wrong and in fact it was called "anti democratic". Sometimes things have to be tested at the supreme court for clarity. This really hasn't come up before so that happened. 1 hour ago, Rebound said: So you want to have it both ways: He can’t be impeached and he can’t be tried. He can' be impeached and he can't be tried. And if you think about it you'll see why that makes perfect sense. Quit making crap up. A president can be held accountable for his actions while in office by the house and the senate. Any actions that AREN"T related to his powers in office can be tried in a court. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
gatomontes99 Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 43 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said: The Jan. 6 committee also produced evidence the Trump campaign (I e., Roger Stone) colluded with the Proud Boys to cause the riot in order to delay the certification, and it wasn't in an election year. Evidence is evidence, and the evidence doesn't support you. Lmao...sure they did. Sorry for the delay, in was riding my unicorn to work. 1 hour ago, robosmith said: Hate to break it to you, but management is responsible for what their employees do, esp when they KNOW ABOUT IT and don't do ANYTHING to STOP IT. Prove it. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted October 3, 2024 Author Report Posted October 3, 2024 4 minutes ago, CdnFox said: And they were wrong. That happens. This case now clarifies how that works. Remember when you and robo and some others were INSISTING!!!! it was ABSOLUTELY TRUE BEYOND ANY DOUBT!!!! That the states were REQUIRED BY LAWWWWW!!!!!! To keep trump off the ballots because "insurrection"? And the judges doing it insisted it too? Turned out they were wrong and in fact it was called "anti democratic". Sometimes things have to be tested at the supreme court for clarity. This really hasn't come up before so that happened. He can' be impeached and he can't be tried. And if you think about it you'll see why that makes perfect sense. Quit making crap up. A president can be held accountable for his actions while in office by the house and the senate. Any actions that AREN"T related to his powers in office can be tried in a court. Too bad your complete lack of ANY legal expertise or credentials makes ^your amateur legal OPINIONS irrelevant. The SCOTUS didn't call Section 3 of the 14th amendment "anti-democratic," in fact those words never appear in their decision. And BEFORE the SCOTUS decision, the CO SCOTUS ruling that he be removed was THE LAW in Colorado. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 39 minutes ago, Rebound said: Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming immunity. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but it was the LAST case of the season. Then, it was the LAST ruling they issued. So who's the foot-dragger? MAGA. Oh, and why was all of this released? Because Trump demanded evidence that his actions were not "official Presidential acts." So Jack Smith obliged him. TRUMP is the one who's delayed this trial. He didn't prove anything. It's a big nothing burger. It was only released because they know Harris is losing. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted October 3, 2024 Author Report Posted October 3, 2024 4 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Prove it. Easily: Originally developed in tort law, respondeat superior holds corporations both civilly and criminally liable for the acts of their employees and agents, so long as the acts were carried out within the scope of their authority and, at least in part, for the benefit of the corporation. Corporations, Directors, and Officers: Potential Criminal and ... 2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: He didn't prove anything. It's a big nothing burger. It was only released because they know Harris is losing. Grand jury sworn testimony therein proves Trump's crimes. Quote
Chrissy1979 Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 21 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Lmao...sure they did. Sorry for the delay, in was riding my unicorn to work. Prove it. They already did. I can't help it if you're too chickensh!t to look Quote
gatomontes99 Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 16 minutes ago, robosmith said: Easily: Originally developed in tort law, respondeat superior holds corporations both civilly and criminally liable for the acts of their employees and agents, so long as the acts were carried out within the scope of their authority and, at least in part, for the benefit of the corporation. Corporations, Directors, and Officers: Potential Criminal and ... Grand jury sworn testimony therein proves Trump's crimes. No. That applies to corporations, for one. For two, nothing that was done was actually illegal. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
gatomontes99 Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 10 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said: They already did. I can't help it if you're too chickensh!t to look So you can't. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
West Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 The reality is the leftists Marxists thru funding of whackjobs have infiltrated the American court system to try and target disenters to their vile agenda. These people are very sick people and won't stop. They are irrational scumbags who are doing great damage to the country Quote
Chrissy1979 Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: So you can't. Of course I can. It's a matter of public record. But I can't force you to look at it, so why bother? I certainly don't care if you want to be uninformed because that's the only way you can support Trump without hating yourself. Quote
robosmith Posted October 3, 2024 Author Report Posted October 3, 2024 17 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: No. That applies to corporations, for one. Yes, applies to all business organizations 17 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: For two, nothing that was done was actually illegal. Says ^amateur legal eagle, whose LEGAL OPINION means NOTHING. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 35 minutes ago, robosmith said: Yes, applies to all business organizations Says ^amateur legal eagle, whose LEGAL OPINION means NOTHING. You don't know that a campaign goes by different rules than a business? Of course not. Has a campaign ever challenged the results of an election? Of course. No one was charged for election interference though. Why not? Because it isnt illegal to file claims in court to challenge legal rulings. Even if they are wrong. Especially if they are wrong. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
CdnFox Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 1 hour ago, robosmith said: Too bad your complete lack of ANY legal expertise or credentials makes ^your amateur legal OPINIONS irrelevant. I literally had to explain to you what a subpoena was. Quote The SCOTUS didn't call Section 3 of the 14th amendment "anti-democratic," in fact those words never appear in their decision. IT's what they said even if they phrased it differently. They said allowing states to enforce Section 3 for federal candidates could result in a scenario in which “a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others, based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record),” the court warned. And that could create a “patchwork” that could “dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times.” “Nothing in the Constitution,” the court wrote, “requires that we endure such chaos.” Quote And BEFORE the SCOTUS decision, the CO SCOTUS ruling that he be removed was THE LAW in Colorado. an unconstitutional law as it turns out. So in other words they were wrong, Which is PRECISELY what i told you. I told you that the colorado court could not rule on federal law. Guess what the decision said? They can't rule on FEDERAL law. And you INSISTED that was WRONG!!! and they COULD!!! But it turns out I know a lot more about the law than you do And in this case the supreme court has once again shot down your mistaken beliefs. So it's not "My" opinon ,it's THIEIR opinion. Swing and a miss again little guy Duh! Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
robosmith Posted October 3, 2024 Author Report Posted October 3, 2024 19 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: You don't know that a campaign goes by different rules than a business? Of course not. Has a campaign ever challenged the results of an election? Of course. No one was charged for election interference though. Why not? Because it isnt illegal to file claims in court to challenge legal rulings. Even if they are wrong. Especially if they are wrong. The issue is NOT legal challenges. The man said "make them riot.... do it!" That is inciting violence when they do it. Duh Are you a complete scatterbrain, or just TROLLING? Quote
gatomontes99 Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 Just now, robosmith said: The issue is NOT legal challenges. The man said "make them riot.... do it!" That is inciting violence when they do it. Duh Are you a complete scatterbrain, or just TROLLING? Good gawd, he didn't incite violence. How many riots were there in Detroit? Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted October 3, 2024 Author Report Posted October 3, 2024 21 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Good gawd, he didn't incite violence. How many riots were there in Detroit? Trump supporters demand Michigan vote center ‘stop the count!’ Quote
gatomontes99 Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 24 minutes ago, robosmith said: Trump supporters demand Michigan vote center ‘stop the count!’ That was a protest and, according to the article, the unrest started with overly restrictive covid requirements. Do you want to try again? I swear you like being made a fool. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Rebound Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 (edited) 3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: He didn't prove anything. It's a big nothing burger. It was only released because they know Harris is losing. I’ve got to be honest with you: There was a riot on Jan 6. People died because of that riot. Police officers were savagely attacked because of that riot. When you lie and say no-one was hurt, or that the people who attacked those police officers are political prisoners, or that the only person who died was Ashlii Babbitt… You’re proving that you don’t live in reality. I get it: You wanted Trump to win. But you don’t win just because you keep saying you won. That’s why Trump isn’t President. Over here, in reality… you sound like a f-ing ldiot. So just stop it. Anyway… if you want people to respect you, live in reality. Britain LOST the American Revolutionary War. The South lost the Civil War. Hitler lost WW II. Trump lost the 2020 election. Like Vance said, talk about the future. Edited October 3, 2024 by Rebound 1 Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
Rebound Posted October 3, 2024 Report Posted October 3, 2024 4 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said: The Jan. 6 committee also produced evidence the Trump campaign (I e., Roger Stone) colluded with the Proud Boys to cause the riot in order to delay the certification, and it wasn't in an election year. Evidence is evidence, and the evidence doesn't support you. Donald Trump said to the Proud Boys: “Stand Back and Stand By” ”Stand By” means “be prepared to do something.” The Proud Boys even made shirts that said “stand back and stand by” Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
Recommended Posts
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.