Chomper Higgot

Willis did not have to prove herself innocent.

No, it was a response to the ‘science conspiracy’ claim.

Oh another conspiracy.

Blind data collection and applying the null hypothesis are two methods to address this, there are others.

Of course not all accusations of Antisemitism in the UK are patent nonsense. Making baseless accusations seems to be a bit of a thing, often laughably so, if it were not for the seriousness of the allegations: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/mar/06/tory-peer-jacqueline-foster-pays-damages-university-challenge

‘Those in the media and political sphere’ ’ (ie not ‘the media and political sphere’ not ‘all the media and all the political sphere’) who stoke division (itself having at least two parts and hence not one sided). And all because you couldn’t deal with my comment on its entirety, choosing instead to truncate my post, mischaracterize what I was saying and fail miserably to do so.

Hitler shows up already.

Trump fan reaches for points of view published by rightwing thintank.

No I was not. As I have pointed out, you truncated my post and in doing so omitted the larger part which completely undermines your characterization of the whole. I very clearly recognized multiple sides of the issue. Sorry you couldn’t deal with that.

I guess that’s why you truncated my post in order to deny the fact I addressed both sides, here’s the bit you cropped out:

You need to get your ears checked, you have an obvious problem with your sense of balance.

Agree, but would add those in the media and political sphere who seek to stoke division for their own purposes are acting to deliberately foster this one way view. I personally know a number Jews who are vociferous in their opposition to the Israeli response, one who refers to Netanyahu as a ‘virulent racist’. Likewise I personally know Muslims who criticize Hamas as a murderous terrorist organization using Palestinians as their pawns. It’s not all black and white/us and them, despite efforts by some to make it so.

Alleged ‘racial quotas’. I’m sure the views you imagine me to have are objectionable. But they are by definition objectionable views you imagine me to have, hence the product of your own thinking.

And considerably better than making up views on behalf of others then arguing with the views you just made up.

So the two perverts who have just been convicted and sentenced got away with committing these crimes in 2016 and therefore thought they’d continue their heinous crimes in 2023? Is that what you are asserting?

If you have evidence of positive discrimination in this case sent it to Brian, he needs it to back up his allegations.

And that’s evidence Grand Jurors being ‘politically motivated’ how?

You are not in any position to assume my views on anything or instruct me in how I should respond to posts. Refer top of thread for subject of discussion.

Another fail for rightwing grievance politics.

I’d read the hypothetical OP and respond according to my thoughts on what it has to say. Now back to topic please (which is not what you imagine I might say and is a real case not a hypothetical case). Refer top of thread.

Again, you are arguing with assumptions you yourself are making. This is better know as arguing with yourself.

And with that assumption your destroy the rest of your post, which is in itself a litany of assumptions.

Trump’s lawyers also argued before the Court for Trump to post partial bonds in order to avoid a fire sale. Then Trump ran his mouth: https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-directly-contradicts-his-lawyers-ny-filings

The point I made obviously went right over your head. It is Grand Juries that handed down the 91 felony indictments, not some ‘political decision’. Get yourself a copy of the U.S. Constitution and refer to the Fifth Amendment. You’ll find Jack Smith gets a few mentions in the OP, he’s a Prosecutor, not a political operative with dark and mysterious control over Grand Jury deliberations.

No because Brian stinks of entitlement.