ADVERTISEMENT

We have a verdict -- Guilty on ALL counts

You willingly put bumper stickers on your car? My perception of you has just taken quite a hit.
Pre-Trump bumper stickers were almost a sure sign the car owner was a left wing Democrat. Times have changed. Now the Tump zealots are loud and proud. Has anyone really seen an Obama, Bush, Clinton or Reagan flag? I don’t recall any, but Trump flags are everywhere. My guess is that it’s another revenue stream for Trump.
 
Pre-Trump bumper stickers were almost a sure sign the car owner was a left wing Democrat. Times have changed. Now the Tump zealots are loud and proud. Has anyone really seen an Obama, Bush, Clinton or Reagan flag? I don’t recall any, but Trump flags are everywhere. My guess is that it’s another revenue stream for Trump.
Pre Trump, many bumper stickers were based on policy stances on both sides.

I have seen just as many don't take ma gun stickers as liberal type stickers. More often than not the cars with 20+ stickers were liberal though

Quite a few Bernie fans have kept their stickers. That is the closest Trump comparison in the stickers on cars race.
 
Pre Trump, many bumper stickers were based on policy stances on both sides.

I have seen just as many don't take ma gun stickers as liberal type stickers. More often than not the cars with 20+ stickers were liberal though

Quite a few Bernie fans have kept their stickers. That is the closest Trump comparison in the stickers on cars race.
I should have said multiple stickers because that was the tell for left wing car owners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
You willingly put bumper stickers on your car? My perception of you has just taken quite a hit.
I should have said multiple stickers because that was the tell for left wing car owners.
I cover my bumper in bumper stickers. Then when I was married I had one on her door that said
MONEY WELL WASTED
 
Pre-Trump bumper stickers were almost a sure sign the car owner was a left wing Democrat. Times have changed. Now the Tump zealots are loud and proud. Has anyone really seen an Obama, Bush, Clinton or Reagan flag? I don’t recall any, but Trump flags are everywhere. My guess is that it’s another revenue stream for Trump.
Gay Pride Rainbow GIF by Hello All


I don’t think it’s that prevalent. There are obviously Trumpers that fly them, but 90+ percent of people refrain. Also, the only political flag I see in my neighborhood is the one above. It’s admittedly only several, but there are zero Trump flags and I live in central Indiana.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Gay Pride Rainbow GIF by Hello All


I don’t think it’s that prevalent. There are obviously Trumpers that fly them, but 90+ percent of people refrain. Also, the only political flags I see in my neighborhood is the one above. It’s admittedly only several, but there are zero Trump flags and I live in central Indiana.
There are blm posters all over my neighborhood. That’s literally it
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Gay Pride Rainbow GIF by Hello All


I don’t think it’s that prevalent. There are obviously Trumpers that fly them, but 90+ percent of people refrain. Also, the only political flags I see in my neighborhood is the one above. It’s admittedly only several, but there are zero Trump flags and I live in central Indiana.
There’s a flag I don’t have! I’m in Ohio and Trump is going to win this state barring some sort of miracle. Trump flags are very common, as are the bumper stickers. It’s weird to me, but it’s not weird to the population here, I guess.
 
There’s a flag I don’t have! I’m in Ohio and Trump is going to win this state barring some sort of miracle. Trump flags are very common, as are the bumper stickers. It’s weird to me, but it’s not weird to the population here, I guess.
I’m amazed at people with bumper stickers. I’d be afraid of getting keyed etc
 
I’m amazed at people with bumper stickers. I’d be afraid of getting keyed etc
I never put bumper stickers on my car, but my wife had a "W" sticker on her car for the 2004 election (back before Trump turned her off on the GOP). That sticker was scraped off in the parking lot of the church we attended for a bit. Some member of that church just couldn't stand for a Republican bumper sticker. We knew it had a considerable number of liberals but didn't think they'd do that to another church goer. We never went back to that church. I can't stand shitheads on either side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
I don’t think so Aloha. The Rittenhouse case is probably the clearest example. There’s no doubt that he was innocent but you really want to take your chances trying that case in Manhattan? There are still leftists that will label him a murderer. Many on this board.
Chuvan was innocent too. The autopsy found no physical injuries at all. None. Absolutely nothing that showed big George died because of force. But he did have about 4x the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system.
 
Chuvan was innocent too. The autopsy found no physical injuries at all. None. Absolutely nothing that showed big George died because of force. But he did have about 4x the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system.
Ray Epps was found guilty in court as well. Of course, he was.
 
Chuvan was innocent too. The autopsy found no physical injuries at all. None. Absolutely nothing that showed big George died because of force. But he did have about 4x the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system.
Floyd’s autopsy was finalised on June 1, 2020 and has never been changed. The conclusion was a homicide by asphyxiation. And physical injury does not need to be present in all asphyxiation cases. Expert witnesses called by prosecutors during the trial concluded that Floyd did not die of an overdose or because of his drug use.
 
He found that Biden willfully retained documents. Willful. He also said that Biden had “significant limitations.” My point remains.
The Hur Report says what you wrote about "willfully retained." It also says this on pp. 10-11 about the differences between Biden's situation and Trump's situation:

"With one exception, there is no record of the Department ofJustice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.

Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Eiden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."

 
Because Bragg is not someone I give a shit about. I live in Illinois. His bullshit in NYC should not effect me. Except when he convicts former presidents on nonsense. **** that fatty. Don’t trust fat people and I never will.
*affect
 
They shouldn’t do things that look shady.

Obama became president as a first term senator, former community organizer. Now he owns houses in DC and Martha’s Vineyard and has a net worth of probably around 100 million.

Is it “shady” that our presidents make bank off of their time in office? Or are we more amenable to the blatant corruption?
How is earning big bucks from best selling books by both he and his wife, and a movie deal with HBO blatant corruption?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
The Hur Report says what you wrote about "willfully retained." It also says this on pp. 10-11 about the differences between Biden's situation and Trump's situation:

"With one exception, there is no record of the Department ofJustice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.

Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Eiden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."

So they both broke the law and prosecutorial discretion was used to charge one but not the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa and DANC
Thank you for proving my point.

Mueller found no evidence that Trump or anyone from his campaign colluded with anyone from Russia in order to influence the election. There WAS no evidence. He looked for 22 months and found nothing, zip, zilch, nada.
So you read his post and that’s what you came up with? Well then there’s no point. You also didn’t answer my question about Manafort? Any ideas?
 
That check, though, doesn't exist, as we all know. The people of NYC wanted Trump's head on a pike, and they elected a man to do just that--to find something to charge him with. That's not how the justice system is supposed to work.

Sui generis isn't how the law is supposed to work, either. But that is exactly what all this "he's a threat to democracy" and "he's a fascist" rhetoric has been about--justifying using extraordinary, norm-breaking methods to beat him by hook or by crook. In my mind, he wasn't worth it and the damage is done. I think this marks a sea change in how politics will be practiced from here on out.
They started going after Trump long before he was running for office , like the Trump Foundation. Trump and his attorneys kept the courts clogged with suits for years in NYC. Trump would sue contractors and businessmen constantly because he knew he had the money to wait them out. Is it any surprise that some judges would finally be happy to have the opportunity to show Trump that there might finally be some consequences to his actions? Karma does indeed come back to bite you in the butt. Trump has made many enemies in NYC, long before politics had anything to do with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
**** off joker. You are not a serious persons if you believe Trump is the larger threat to our “historical order”.

You’re just a clown with a vocabulary that is half as good as you think it is
Your narcissism knows no bounds. Your judgement and character barometer is broken.
 
So they both broke the law and prosecutorial discretion was used to charge one but not the other.
Maybe.

Edit to add: There is also the issue of prosecution for the purpose of retrieving the documents and getting them back into the hands of the government where they belong.

We don't know whether Pence and Biden still kept any classified documents after being asked to return them. It's clear Trump was not going to return the documents without being forced to. That's on Trump entirely.
 
Last edited:
No he's not. The goal was always to get a guilty verdict to run campaign ads on. This will 100% be reversed on appeal. Even all the Dems know that.

There must have been a better way to pay Stormy than use business accounts. Especially given the business laws in the State of New York about which the Trump team should be well versed.

You would think Trump and his lawyers were smarter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baller23Boogie
You're the one who has been whining about the "conflicted status" of Judge Merchon. Yet when it's pointed out to you that Cannon who was appointed directly by Trump, is a member of the Federalist Society and hangs out on expensive retreats with like-minded folks, you have no problem with her not recusing herself?

And yet you're upset because Merchon, who gave less than $50 to the Biden campaign 5 yrs ago, didn't recuse himself? Two questions which of these two "conflicted" judges do you think was appointed to handle a Trump case first?

And secondly how much do you think the annual fees for Federalist society membership are ?
It's against the rules in NY do donate to a political party. There is no dollar requirement.

But congrats on not doing your usual cut-and-paste. You once again make yourself look like a fool when you try to make a point without your usual nutty sources.
 
No he’s not. No one that sees Trump as a larger threat than Biden’s can hide being his posts being “mostly opinion” just like the rest of ours. No need to attribute any significance to him.
If he was talking about a peaceful transfer of power, so far Trump is 0 for 1.
 
The Trump world is a horror show of corruption and un-American behavior. The Mueller report reinforced the truth of that.

Russia attacked our systems and attempted to interfere in our elections through a concentrated social media campaign.

Yet, people like Tucker Carlson encourage a softening toward our adversary and engage in propaganda in support of Russia.

Much of Russia's social media interference campaign had a (successful) focus on promoting Trump and dividing America.

Key Trump supporters actively engaged with the fake and bad faith social media interference from Russia via re-tweets and other amplifications.

We also know that the social media content promulgated via Russia found and finds an easy channel in the right-wing news coverage which ultimately ends up on this board, among many other places.

Russia also hacked Democratic Party and Clinton operations in an effort to bring Clinton down.

The Mueller investigation was unable to prove that Trump and his campaign co-organized those efforts (collusion), but Trump openly and actively welcomed those Russian efforts.

Don Jr. and others met with Russians looking for opportunities for Russian intelligence to smear the Clinton campaign. The intention is there, but those efforts largely proved fruitless (so no effective coordination/collusion).

Mueller waved off any coordination and collusion claim for lack of clear proof. Mueller did so despite extensive interactions between Russian actors and despite that Trump's team actively lied to and obstructed Mueller's investigation. Mueller's report acknowledges that there may indeed have been wrongful coordination and that the missing information could alter the conclusions.

Meanwhile, in no small part because of possible business advantages for Trump in Russian, Trump's campaign team was actively engaged with Russians and began talks about softening America's hard stance against Russia and watering down sanctions. (Not coincidentally, right-wing support for Russia over Ukraine and U.S. interests grows).

Mueller laid out in painstaking detail how Trump obstructed justice. That obstruction would amount to a crime. Indeed, he expressly concluded there was substantial evidence of the commission of wrongdoing. However, Mueller stated at the outset that the DOJ cannot indict a sitting president, so he lacked authority to reach the conclusion that Trump committed a crime. All he can do is lay out and assess the evidence. Basically, Mueller concluded that there was indeed a "1", there was another "1", and there was yet another "1", but he could not by law complete the sum and add 1 + 1 + 1. A different tribunal must do that math. Mueller was clear that by that inability he was not concluding that no crime was committed. That arcane and unfortunate failure to meet the system's needs rendered a massive disinformation campaign about just what exactly Mueller concluded.
Uh, I think you left out the small detail of Clinton paying Russians for dirt on Trump..... but that's not colluding with Russians, is it?

Mueller? The stumbling, bumbling fool who couldn't answer questions about his own investigation?

Don't make me laugh.
 
It’s scary how many people still do not have the slightest understanding of the Mueller report. Because DOnnie said completely exonerated, you guys believe that. There is and was plenty of evidence. I’ll point out just one. So you have an explanation for why Paul Manafort was passing voter rolls and information to the Russians? What possible reason can you dream up for that? Start there….
I don't think you know the difference between 'rolls' and 'polls'.

Manafort was showing the Russians Trump had a chance to win. But keep on with your hysteria. Meanwhile, Hillary was using Russians to make shit up in the Steele Dossier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
I don’t think so Aloha. The Rittenhouse case is probably the clearest example. There’s no doubt that he was innocent but you really want to take your chances trying that case in Manhattan? There are still leftists that will label him a murderer. Many on this board.
OJ Simpson, anyone???
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
None of us are winning any arguments here. I don’t feel the need to respond in good faith when someone asks if the library is filled with books on “ass sex”. That doesn’t deserve a serious discussion.
No, but it's damn funny
 
I thought Christopher Darden was dog shit. Marcia Clark was a good lawyer. Darden was milktoast. I was in law school at the time and of course everyone watched the trial every day. F. Lee Bailey just came across as an ahole. Johnny C., however, was a cool customer.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT