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

[bignok]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away.

Lefties posting opinions arent facts

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, bignok said:

Lefties posting opinions arent facts

True, but that's not the case.

[bignok]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

True, but that's not the case.

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

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, bignok said:

Lefties posting opinions arent facts

Says the poster proudly living in an echo chamber.

[Berkshire]

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. 

[bignok]

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.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

The Biden ones are the most unhappiest people on here.

How do you know who members vote for............?  ????............????

[Berkshire]

4 minutes ago, bignok said:

The Biden ones are the most unhappiest people on here.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take you seriously. 

[bignok]

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

I'm sorry, but I just can't take you seriously. 

Who cares. You are a stranger on a forum posting nonsense. I don't care.

[transam]

1 minute ago, bignok said:

Who cares. You are a stranger on a forum posting nonsense. I don't care.

But he isn't, that is your domain.....................

[bignok]

2 sad emojis from Biden fans

 Point proven.

[transam]

4 minutes ago, bignok said:

2 sad emojis from Biden fans

 Point proven.

Tell us who Biden fans here are, after all you seem to know everything...????

[JCauto]

5 hours ago, transam said:

Tell us who Biden fans here are, after all you seem to know everything...????

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. That means taking care of the poor and the planet while keeping things moving economically. Check into the "Doughnut Economy" model for example.

[Nick Carter icp]

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 ?

[ozimoron]

Just now, 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 ?

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

[Nick Carter icp]

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 September 5, 2023 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[ozimoron]

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.

[Nick Carter icp]

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

[ozimoron]

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.

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

 

[JCauto]

15 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 ?

No, I support rule of law. It's pretty unambiguous. I see that you're once again projecting your own opinions onto those of your political opponents. Yes, I understand this, pretty much every Republican policy is projected from the basis of "I know what we are doing/would do, therefore it's reasonable to assume our opponents are doing the same thing and therefore we're justified in getting out in front of it." Except that, with the evidence that there is no longer any realistic policy base for what passes as leadership other than "winning" or "against woke-ism" or "abortion bad" or "dog-whistling past the (electoral) graveyard", there's no coherence in any of it.

 

Do I think that Kyle Rittenhouse should have been guilty? I do think so based on what he did, but I understand that the current laws of the USA as stuffed into the ballot box by the Gun Lobby make it that he was not. I have faith that in the vast majority of cases the Judge and Jury will rule according to their understanding of the law. That we dislike that law is self-evident and that we would rather change that law than come up with a basis to circumvent it or ignore it in favor of achieving our desired result is exactly what my post was about. The current divide between Republican and Democrat is as much about process versus results. Republicans believe in achieving outcomes that they desire in any way possible; illegal, immoral or unethical means are just towards that end so are acceptable. Democrats do not. I actually think poor young Kyle is not that bad a kid, just one who's been manipulated his entire life, first by his gun-nut moron parents and then by becoming the face of the Right. He's just a kid.

 

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")

Edited September 6, 2023 by JCauto

[Nick Carter icp]

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 .

 

[JCauto]

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.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, JCauto said:

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.

Moving the goalposts?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/6/2023 at 2:48 PM, JCauto said:

No, I support rule of law. It's pretty unambiguous.

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

[Jingthing]

Trumpism is a disease. 

 

 

[JCauto]

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.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, JCauto said:

I see you lack even the basic understanding of the legal process.

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

[placeholder]

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 September 10, 2023 by placeholder

[placeholder]

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.