robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 1 hour ago, West said: It's my opinion based on his behavior that he's a danger to a functioning legal system. Your amateur legal opinion about the laws of a foreign nations is meaningless. 1 hour ago, West said: For all the talk about Trump abusing the institutions, that was done way more these past four years to smear Trump's base as well as to silence oppisition to the Biden regime Everyone HERE, except for the MAGA CULT, knows that Trumps violations of norms and ethics are UNPRECEDENTED. YOU don't even know what those are. Quote
West Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 8 minutes ago, robosmith said: Your amateur legal opinion about the laws of a foreign nations is meaningless. Everyone HERE, except for the MAGA CULT, knows that Trumps violations of norms and ethics are UNPRECEDENTED. YOU don't even know what those are. You are right. Which is why I rely on the ruling of the Supreme Court. And as I've already explained to you, Canadians have been deployed to fight in wars alongside the US in no small part because of lawlessness. The US under Biden was a lawless country who settle political disputes through gossip columns and lawfare against their political adversary. Choose a better way, America or stop championing yourself as a beacon of democracy Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 (edited) 1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said: SCOTUS on Jack Smith's political persecution of McDonnell: The SCOTUS attacked Jack Smith's tactics as distasteful and certified it 8-0. He is a danger to a functional legal system. Q. E. D. You're LYING. The SCOTUS never takes votes on "distasteful" because that is NOT a legal standard. Duh And what was thought distasteful according to YOUR CITE was McDonnell's receipt of gifts from a constituent wanting favors. And the name Smith does NOT even appear on the page you cited. WTH are you talking about? You're not making ANY SENSE, since the case was not decided by the SCOTUS, it was "remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." Edited January 15 by robosmith Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 3 minutes ago, robosmith said: You're LYING. The SCOTUS never takes votes on "distasteful" because that is NOT a legal standard. Duh And what was thought distasteful was McDonnell's receipt of gifts from a constituent wanting favors. And the name Smith does NOT even appear on the page you cited. WTH are you talking about? You're not making ANY SENSE, since the case was not decided by the SCOTUS, it was "remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." No. They said what was distasteful was the government's actions. And by "the government" they were talking about Jack Smith. 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 January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, West said: You are right. Which is why I rely on the ruling of the Supreme Court. And as I've already explained to you, Canadians have been deployed to fight in wars alongside the US in no small part because of lawlessness. The US under Biden was a lawless country who settle political disputes through gossip columns and lawfare against their political adversary. Choose a better way, America or stop championing yourself as a beacon of democracy AGAIN you're making CLAIMS with NO EVIDENCE. You have NOT relied on the SCOTUS, you have not even cited a ruling by the SCOTUS. SCOTUS decision on Trump immunity was EASILY SIDESTEPPED by Jack Smith because (if you read the report) it is explained WHY Trump's speech was NOT an official act, it was a campaign speech. Duh Quote
West Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 12 minutes ago, robosmith said: AGAIN you're making CLAIMS with NO EVIDENCE. You have NOT relied on the SCOTUS, you have not even cited a ruling by the SCOTUS. SCOTUS decision on Trump immunity was EASILY SIDESTEPPED by Jack Smith because (if you read the report) it is explained WHY Trump's speech was NOT an official act, it was a campaign speech. Duh No, it wasn't. It very likely would've been slapped down had he brought the case. Of course I'm giving my opinions. That's the whole point of a political forum. Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 6 minutes ago, West said: No, it wasn't. It very likely would've been slapped down had he brought the case. Meaningless ^amateur legal OPINION. Cite expert sources if you want to be taken seriously. Anyone can post guesses and speculation which mean NOTHING. 6 minutes ago, West said: Of course I'm giving my opinions. That's the whole point of a political forum. Do you even know what debate is? LMAO You make your points WITH EVIDENCE, and I present EVIDENCE which proves you wrong. You can post your OPINIONS on a blog. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules of debate. Quote
West Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 5 minutes ago, robosmith said: Meaningless ^amateur legal OPINION. Cite expert sources if you want to be taken seriously. Anyone can post guesses and speculation which mean NOTHING. Do you even know what debate is? LMAO You make your points WITH EVIDENCE, and I present EVIDENCE which proves you wrong. You can post your OPINIONS on a blog. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules of debate. You observe his behavior and form an opinion. That's what I'm doing. Another poster has already demonstrated his questionable conduct on other cases. Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 23 minutes ago, West said: You observe his behavior and form an opinion. That's what I'm doing. I see what he wrote and it matches OTHER SOURCES. "Behavior" is just speculation. 23 minutes ago, West said: Another poster has already demonstrated his questionable conduct on other cases. No he has NOT. Smith name does not even appear on his cite. IF YOU SEE IT, quote it here. That is how EVIDENCE WORKS. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 (edited) 4 hours ago, Radiorum said: it's not spam, it's facts, and if you have any counter-points to share, please do so. it's spam when you post it every 5 minutes and it's not 'facts', its' a claim made by one person which hasn't been tested. Edited January 15 by CdnFox Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Deluge Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 5 hours ago, robosmith said: Final Report of the Special Counsel Under 28 C.F.R. § 600.8 Such indictment and prosecution with EVIDENCE is NOT "lawfare," it is the standard of JUSTICE for EVERYONE in the US. Go take your meds, robowoke. Your TDS is flaring up again. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 3 hours ago, Radiorum said: No, this is what happened. I know, the truth can be hard to accept. No, it's an accusation of what happened. Do you have a judgment from a judge confirming that in his opinion after a fair trial this is what happened? Do you understand how the legal process works? If trump's defense were to file a reply that said he was innocent would you accept that as being the truth and facts just because it was a filing? This is why we have trials. Very frequently the evidence turns out to be false. Or the conclusions about the evidence being illegal turns out to be false. Let's try and keep it real. These are what trump was accused of doing. Trump and his legal team would obviously see the facts as being very different. By no means shape or form can this document be considered to be a statement of fact. It's just a statement Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
West Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 8 minutes ago, robosmith said: I see what he wrote and it matches OTHER SOURCES. "Behavior" is just speculation. No he has NOT. Smith name does not even appear on his cite. IF YOU SEE IT, quote it here. That is how EVIDENCE WORKS. I've never once claimed to have a legal background on here. And again, I'm not going to go through every nightly newscast to crop out the discussion on Smith. When I hear you say this bullshit I know you are a leftard just trying to control the narrative by only accepting information that confirms your bias. So if you aren't a serious person, perhaps just put me on ignore like you do to everybody else. Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 11 minutes ago, Deluge said: Go take your meds, robowoke. Your TDS is flaring up again. It's just ^your BULLSHIT IMAGINATION. Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, West said: I've never once claimed to have a legal background on here. And again, I'm not going to go through every nightly newscast to crop out the discussion on Smith. You cited a source, and now you can't find his name. Pathetic. 4 minutes ago, West said: When I hear you say this bullshit I know you are a leftard just trying to control the narrative by only accepting information that confirms your bias. So if you aren't a serious person, perhaps just put me on ignore like you do to everybody else. No, I only accept actual EVIDENCE of which you seldom have more than just tweet. Tweets are seldom evidence. Do you even know what evidence is? LMAO Quote
West Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 (edited) 14 minutes ago, robosmith said: You cited a source, and now you can't find his name. Pathetic. No, I only accept actual EVIDENCE of which you seldom have more than just tweet. Tweets are seldom evidence. Do you even know what evidence is? LMAO Your evidence you accept is very narrow. Any time previous I've pulled an article you find a reason to reject it. Again, I'm posting opinions like anybody else based on reading news articles, listening to nightly news, and just a general concept of fairness within society. I'm not going to go back over the past few years that Smith has turned your system into a circus just to demonstrate how I reached my conclusion. If you think going after Trump and his allies with the legal system is okay, or trashing a guy because of an issue in his marriage is okay, you are seriously bankrupt of any sort of morals and I doubt we will ever share the same opinions on politics. Edited January 15 by West Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 26 minutes ago, West said: Your evidence you accept is very narrow. Any time previous I've pulled an article you find a reason to reject it. Again, I'm posting opinions like anybody else based on reading news articles, listening to nightly news, and just a general concept of fairness within society. I'm not going to go back over the past few years that Smith has turned your system into a circus just to demonstrate how I reached my conclusion. Pathetic AGAIN. The cite to which I and you referred was on the same page. Your made up excuse about "past few years" is completely IRRELEVANT. 26 minutes ago, West said: If you think going after Trump and his allies with the legal system is okay Prosecutors go where the EVIDENCE leads them. That is their JOB. Duh 26 minutes ago, West said: , or trashing a guy because of an issue in his marriage is okay, you are seriously bankrupt of any sort of morals and I doubt we will ever share the same opinions on politics. Do you know what blackmail is? It's something no one in charge of top security organizations should EVER be allowed to be potentially a subject of. IF you think being subject to blackmail due to derogatory secrets is is OK, I will never agree with you. Quote
Deluge Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 41 minutes ago, robosmith said: It's just ^your BULLSHIT IMAGINATION. It's the truth, and it's in your face. Go self soothe in your safety space. You need it. Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 17 minutes ago, Deluge said: It's the truth, and it's in your face. Go self soothe in your safety space. You need it. You know that NO ONE outside the MAGA CULT believes your BULLSHIT don't you. IOW you're just wasting your time. And if you don't start making substantive posts, I'm going to add you to my ignore list. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 1 hour ago, robosmith said: You know that NO ONE outside the MAGA CULT believes your BULLSHIT don't you. IOW you're just wasting your time. And if you don't start making substantive posts, I'm going to add you to my ignore list. Woo HOOOO @Deluge makes the list I know you worked hard at that bud So what has he got left, like 3 people he can still talk to? Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Moonlight Graham Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 So the electorate holds a veto against the rule of law? LOL. Good thing the electorate don't all have law degrees. The Democrats need to soul search and figure out why voters elected instead of them a wannabe authoritarian dictator and clear felon with little regard for the constitution or democracy when his power is at risk. The bar wasn't very high and they lost LOL. 1 Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
myata Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 53 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said: The Democrats need to soul search and figure out why voters elected instead of them a wannabe authoritarian dictator and clear felon with little regard for the constitution or democracy when his power is at risk Good points. Not every society can be a democracy to begin with. Where common folk doesn't need and/or understand the notions of freedoms and law dictatorship is the natural form of social organization since times immemorial. It's one of the strangest and most unfathomable believes of the enlightened Western elites of the last several decades to believe and throw outrageous resources at building fake democracies where there was no social foundation for them. What if the condition of modern America approaches that of those places? There can be no miracles. Democrats have been living in their own universe that forget the red shift removed itself from the physical reality at accelerating pace. The causes celebre one had to bow to and go on loving and parading changed with the speed of a fan. When the society told them let's have something more to the ground and focus on our bread and meat here, the response was no no we haven't reached the perfect diversity yet let's have a bit more here. In a binary system, with only two possible choices, this situation created for the common folk a tantalizing choice between the revulsion to ideological falsely progressive agendas and letting go of the reason and integrity. And the choice was made. Pueblo can't think of the consequences in these cases. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
NAME REMOVED Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 7 hours ago, Radiorum said: Lol, his only goal was to secure the election (that he lost) for himself He used the word "Fight!" ten times during his speech at the Ellipse on January 6 I'm sure you are repeating something that you have been told. Find out for yourself None of that matters. America is broken, and the rule of law doe snot apply to some people. 1 Quote
myata Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said: So the electorate holds a veto against the rule of law? More like the plebiscite to have no rule of law. Back to the Middle Ages. With a click of the voting machine. This is no exaggeration. Democratic justice requires two parts: the principles, and the process. They ensure that the outcome is not arbitrary, that a criminal is condemned and innocent acquitted. Here the pueblo said "I don't care about the principles or process I want to make him innocent whatever he did". And that's the effective end of the law period in America. You can't have rule of law when criminal walks free and can parade it brazenly. It becomes a travesty, empty show. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
myata Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 1 minute ago, DUI_Offender said: America is broken, and the rule of law doe snot apply to some people True and de facto. The rule of law is broken in America. And there are no smug ways around this fact. Try to take in for a moment what it means. Yes we did? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
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.