Jump to content

Trump tells Glenn Beck he’d ‘lock up’ political opponents if reelected


Social Media

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, bignok said:

Dont know what your point is. Happy people dont worry much about things they cant control. Unhappy people do that.

It's been apparent for some time that Trump supporters are the unhappiest people in America.  They're mostly unhappy because no one takes them seriously. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

It's been apparent for some time that Trump supporters are the unhappiest people in America.  They're mostly unhappy because no one takes them seriously. 

The Biden ones are the most unhappiest people on here.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JCauto said:

He also knows whether we're happy or not.

 

He can't understand why we don't fly "Biden" flags and wear his name on our shirts. We don't believe in personalities, we believe in social democracy, systematic justice and rule of law. 

Do you still believe in the rule of law if a Court decision goes against your preferences .

   Like in the Kyle Rittenhouse case , did you support the rule of law when he got a not guilty verdict ?

   Do you believe in the rule of law only when it suits you ?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I thought the decision was wrong but I accepted it. Can you spot the difference?

I didn't mean YOU personally, I was referring to the Democrats who rioted after the Rittenhouse verdict !!!!!!!!!

 

Rioting in the US as Kyle Rittenhouse verdict divides nation

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/president-biden-kyle-rittenhouse-angry-not-guilty-riots-protest-portland-b967323.html

 

   (Cannot make the letters smaller )

 

Edited by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

I didn't mean YOU personally, I was referring to the Democrats who rioted after the Rittenhouse verdict !!!!!!!!!

 

Rioting in the US as Kyle Rittenhouse verdict divides nation

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/president-biden-kyle-rittenhouse-angry-not-guilty-riots-protest-portland-b967323.html

 

   (Cannot make the letters smaller )

 

Protesting after an unjust verdict is hardly threatening democracy.  Those pictures don't show rioting. Some broken windows is pearl clutching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Protesting after an unjust verdict is hardly threatening democracy.  Those pictures don't show rioting. Some broken windows is pearl clutching.

The question was about supporting the rule of law , and breaking windows because you disagree with a legal verdict is indeed against the law and breaking windows isnt supporting the rule of law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

The question was about supporting the rule of law , and breaking windows because you disagree with a legal verdict is indeed against the law and breaking windows isnt supporting the rule of law

Those who got caught doing that got charged. Same for the antifa riots despite the right wing talking points that they weren't. It's really lame that the right wing are trying to gain the high moral ground on law abiding here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Do you still believe in the rule of law if a Court decision goes against your preferences .

   Like in the Kyle Rittenhouse case , did you support the rule of law when he got a not guilty verdict ?

   Do you believe in the rule of law only when it suits you ?

Ever heard "the law is an ass"?

History is chocka with cases of wrongful convictions, and depending on country can be used for political reasons.

 

Sooner AI ejects all human judges and takes over the better, IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

 

 

So no, I don't believe in rule of law only when it suits me. But of course, I asked that question of you, and you have declined to answer it as is generally the case with my Right-Wing interlocutors.

 

(Edit: changed "then" to "than")

You don't seem to have asked me that question , I have looked back through this thread and you haven't asked me a question and I have looked on my notifications list and you don't seem to have replied to me before , let alone asking me a question .

   The reason why I have "declined" to  answer your question, is because you haven't asked me a question .

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

You don't seem to have asked me that question , I have looked back through this thread and you haven't asked me a question and I have looked on my notifications list and you don't seem to have replied to me before , let alone asking me a question .

   The reason why I have "declined" to  answer your question, is because you haven't asked me a question .

 

Perhaps it was another poster. These are rolling discussions. I asked the question, you're on the other side of the rolling discussion, figured you could probably answer it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2023 at 2:44 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

If it were unambiguous there would be no need for an appeals court.

This is an integral part of "rule of law". There are appeals processes for those convicted or otherwise on the losing end of a court case. I see you lack even the basic understanding of the legal process.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2023 at 3:44 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

If it were unambiguous there would be no need for an appeals court.

Sure. You can't think of anyone who repeatedly posted appeals and repeatedly got them shot down by judges because they were baseless? No one comes to mind at all? You've got nothing.

Edited by placeholder
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and you apparently lack even the basic understanding of what I wrote.

Actually, it's you who lack even a basic understanding of what you wrote. Your claim that "If it were unambiguous there would be no need for an appeals court." is obviously nonsense.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...