Ahahaha!

You're right!
I wasn't smart enough to go to Cal!
But my parents and grandparents were, and is my daughter, who is enrolled for Fall classes!

And, come on man, don't exaggerate. It was only $20B, not $80B. And it was about 15 investment funds, not 1.

Eat me.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

---

Are you actually reading my post?

When did I write he is not guilty? Please quote me.

Maybe it is you who misunderstand. The question was, even if there is no question on his guilt, is this the right case to break the norm.

---

Oh. I think I'm seeing your light.
You want him to be above certain laws, is that right?

---

I think short of drawing you a picture, you may not have this not be over your head.

I will however try again.

Would you be for breaching the historical norm of not prosecuting former presidents over jaywalking? How about speeding? How about perjury for misleading under oath (yes, I know he was impeached but not prosecuted for a crime)? Why not? Not serious and unifying enough that people would not understand the rationale for violating norms of not prosecuting what could be viewed as politically motivated. Maybe not serious enough that people may not think it is worth creating the jeopardy of creating a venue for future former presidents to be easily charged with crime like they are in some third world countries?

So the question is not whether there was actually a crime and whether there was actually a justifiable verdict. It was a question of whether this was a pyrrhic victory in the sense that the cost of enforcing this law based on circumstantial evidence for something that most people don't think is that important is worth throwing away one of the most important aspect of peaceful transition of power in this country.

I suspect you still don't get it.

---

How do you have historical norms for crimes no former President has committed until now?

How can you claim we are throwing away the "peaceful transition of power" in a post January 6th world? It's OK for Trump to do so but not Biden (if he's doing that at all)?

This whole notion some people have that Presidents and Ex-Presidents can't be held accountable for their crimes is just bizarre.

---

Couple of things. Don't create a one or the other situation when both can exist. Trump can be guilty of disrupting peaceful transfer of power and this case can also create jeopardy of that. And it isn't a cliff of a plateau of peaceful transfer of power that we fell off from on January 6th. There was always a danger. January 6th made it more dangerous. So did this case in my mind.

And again, stop thinking binary. As I mentioned (which you conveniently bypassed), I am personally for prosecuting Trump for classified documents and for election interference. Those are fundamental to our way of government and power transfer, and it is worth the risk of escalating the risk of violent transfer of power to discourage future presidents from engaging in acts that disrupt our national security. There is a spectrum and judgment and not binary process. It is a question of whether this case rose to that level. I don't think it did.

concordtom said:

---

Ahahaha!

You're right!
I wasn't smart enough to go to Cal!
But my parents and grandparents were, and is my daughter, who is enrolled for Fall classes!

And, come on man, don't exaggerate. It was only $20B, not $80B. And it was about 15 investment funds, not 1.

Eat me.

---

Yeah right. Maybe just say that you were one of those wanna be wealth advisors from whom we upper middle class folks always get cold calls. And I feel better about UC Berkeley now.

I'm glad we can agree on the sickness of Jan 6, on Trump stealing classified documents.
If those trials ever get liftoff, we can enjoy limited sparing.

Unfortunately, they are politically tied up by partisans who hope to inoculate him from facing justice for his crimes.

Therefore, while you'd prefer him to be held for murder instead of jaywalking, jaywalking is what we have.

And you know, if it was such a minuscule case, why was he incapable of restraining himself and following the judge's instructions?
You know, he broke the gag order 10x, and he might get probation for the 34 financial documents fraud but jail for showing no respect for the Law.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Ahahaha!

You're right!
I wasn't smart enough to go to Cal!
But my parents and grandparents were, and is my daughter, who is enrolled for Fall classes!

And, come on man, don't exaggerate. It was only $20B, not $80B. And it was about 15 investment funds, not 1.

Eat me.

---

Yeah right. Maybe just say that you were one of those wanna be wealth advisors from whom we upper middle class folks always get cold calls. And I feel better about UC Berkeley now.

---

Ha.
Whatever. It's in the past.
I'm not going to give you anything else here.
You're right. I'm scum, and dumb, beating on my kill trump drum.

Off to a graduation ceremony.
It's always fun.
Have a good night!

It is hard to fathom how no reasonable Republicans are stepping forward with even tame reprimands of Trump. How has this cult taken such hold that no one must speak ill of the delicate leader? Not one person of influence in the party saying maybe we shouldn't nominate a convicted felon? Not one person saying, hey Donald maybe you shouldn't cheat on your wife, pork a pornstar, pay her off to hide that info from voters, and then obstruct justice in a cover up. I mean that doesn't seem like a big stretch to be against those things, right?

When in this nation has there ever been this blind devotion before? Officials drop out of races for the tiniest fraction of what Trump has done. Why this man? By any objective assessment he is not a good or enlightened human. He is so undeserving of this idolatry (I guess like all authoritarians or beneficiaries of cult of personality he too is a POS human whose followers excuse every deficiency and immorality).

Even really bad parents tend to punish their child rather than the teacher when their kid misbehaves. But not the GOP, it's all the teacher, the principal, the school! My perfect child Trump is perfect! It's the systems fault!

So deep is the "loyalty" and need to protect the leader that one must not say anything and in fact (like all things Trump) act like it never happened or else it was all everybody else's fault. All anger directed at everything but the man who actually did the acts and made the decisions and no pause on hmmm maybe a person who does these things and shows this lack of character or judgement shouldn't be a president. Instead, pretend that Biden is just as bad or worse and that Trump is every lie he says rather than the things he actually does.

My brain just doesn't work this way. I hold no person in this place of worship where my world view must be shaped to protect them or to bend reality to their exultation. I do not understand this other way of thinking; the willingness to cheat, lie, and be deceived; and the need to project onto others your own tribalism and all the terrible things that you would do for your party onto people who would NOT do those same terrible things for their party.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

---

Are you actually reading my post?

When did I write he is not guilty? Please quote me.

Maybe it is you who misunderstand. The question was, even if there is no question on his guilt, is this the right case to break the norm.

---

Oh. I think I'm seeing your light.
You want him to be above certain laws, is that right?

---

I think short of drawing you a picture, you may not have this not be over your head.

I will however try again.

Would you be for breaching the historical norm of not prosecuting former presidents over jaywalking? How about speeding? How about perjury for misleading under oath (yes, I know he was impeached but not prosecuted for a crime)? Why not? Not serious and unifying enough that people would not understand the rationale for violating norms of not prosecuting what could be viewed as politically motivated. Maybe not serious enough that people may not think it is worth creating the jeopardy of creating a venue for future former presidents to be easily charged with crime like they are in some third world countries?

So the question is not whether there was actually a crime and whether there was actually a justifiable verdict. It was a question of whether this was a pyrrhic victory in the sense that the cost of enforcing this law based on circumstantial evidence for something that most people don't think is that important is worth throwing away one of the most important aspect of peaceful transition of power in this country.

I suspect you still don't get it.

---

So you're saying prosecution for a crime involves taking the entire picture as a whole then?*

If so, then this COMPLETELY debunks your entire narrative. That Felonious Trump has a very long track record of criminal and civil offenses means he's about the MOST DESERVING to be prosecuted for crimes. He shows ZERO remorse for his illegal and unethical actions and shows that he's more than willing to continue behaving in this manner. In other words, he's a proven recidivist. And we're not talking "jaywalking" here. His family evaded $500 million in taxes. He falsified his tax records and bank applications for loans, he's defrauded so many people over he years. He endlessly attacks the fundamental foundations of the US justice system.

NYT, David Cay Johnston, Michael Lewis and about a million other journalists and reporters have exposed Trumps transgressions. There is no shortage of examples here exposing a lifelong track record of unethical behavior, fraud, graft, scheming, and criminal behavior.

And then there's the whole sedition thing and undermining an election part! OMG, how much worse can it get? I guess he hasn't openly murdered anyone yet. But he said he could, so don't put it past him!

If there's ANYONE worthy of having the screws put to him by our judicial system, it's Donald John Felonious Treasonous Trump. Again, based on your take on the situation.

* But as we all know, justice should be "blind." It shouldn't matter if you're a poor MacDonalds worker or the former President of the United States who hits and kills a pedestrian while drunk driving, BOTH should face the consequences of committing a terrible crime. Both should be prosecuted without prejudice by our judicial system and adjudicate by a jury of one's peers.

blungld said:

---

It is hard to fathom how no reasonable Republicans are stepping forward with even tame reprimands of Trump. How has this cult taken such hold that no one must speak ill of the delicate leader? Not one person of influence in the party saying maybe we shouldn't nominate a convicted felon? Not one person saying, hey Donald maybe you shouldn't cheat on your wife, pork a pornstar, pay her off to hide that info from voters, and then obstruct justice in a cover up. I mean that doesn't seem like a big stretch to be against those things, right?

When in this nation has there ever been this blind devotion before? Officials drop out of races for the tiniest fraction of what Trump has done. Why this man? By any objective assessment he is not a good or enlightened human. He is so undeserving of this idolatry (I guess like all authoritarians or beneficiaries of cult of personality he too is a POS human whose followers excuse every deficiency and immorality).

Even really bad parents tend to punish their child rather than the teacher when their kid misbehaves. But not the GOP, it's all the teacher, the principal, the school! My perfect child Trump is perfect! It's the systems fault!

So deep is the "loyalty" and need to protect the leader that one must not say anything and in fact (like all things Trump) act like it never happened or else it was all everybody else's fault. All anger directed at everything but the man who actually did the acts and made the decisions and no pause on hmmm maybe a person who does these things and shows this lack of character or judgement shouldn't be a president. Instead, pretend that Biden is just as bad or worse and that Trump is every lie he says rather than the things he actually does.

My brain just doesn't work this way. I hold no person in this place of worship where my world view must be shaped to protect them or to bend reality to their exultation. I do not understand this other way of thinking; the willingness to cheat, lie, and be deceived; and the need to project onto others your own tribalism and all the terrible things that you would do for your party onto people who would NOT do those same terrible things for their party.

---

Excellent. Of all the takes yesterday, the one that spoke to me the most was the guy who tweeted something like, "Here is a list of all the Republicans who are urging Trump to drop out of the race, now that he is a convicted felon... ". (nobody listed, of course).

EDIT: I guess he's not a "convicted felon" until sentencing. Whatever.


The Republicans are pathetic. And I'd like to think I'd have the same opinion of the Democrats, were they in this same situation. (Granted, I'd like to think a lot of things.)

TandemBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

---

Are you actually reading my post?

When did I write he is not guilty? Please quote me.

Maybe it is you who misunderstand. The question was, even if there is no question on his guilt, is this the right case to break the norm.

---

Oh. I think I'm seeing your light.
You want him to be above certain laws, is that right?

---

I think short of drawing you a picture, you may not have this not be over your head.

I will however try again.

Would you be for breaching the historical norm of not prosecuting former presidents over jaywalking? How about speeding? How about perjury for misleading under oath (yes, I know he was impeached but not prosecuted for a crime)? Why not? Not serious and unifying enough that people would not understand the rationale for violating norms of not prosecuting what could be viewed as politically motivated. Maybe not serious enough that people may not think it is worth creating the jeopardy of creating a venue for future former presidents to be easily charged with crime like they are in some third world countries?

So the question is not whether there was actually a crime and whether there was actually a justifiable verdict. It was a question of whether this was a pyrrhic victory in the sense that the cost of enforcing this law based on circumstantial evidence for something that most people don't think is that important is worth throwing away one of the most important aspect of peaceful transition of power in this country.

I suspect you still don't get it.

---

So you're saying prosecution for a crime involves taking the entire picture as a whole then?*

If so, then this COMPLETELY debunks your entire narrative. That Felonious Trump has a very long track record of criminal and civil offenses means he's about the MOST DESERVING to be prosecuted for crimes. He shows ZERO remorse for his illegal and unethical actions and shows that he's more than willing to continue behaving in this manner. In other words, he's a proven recidivist. And we're not talking "jaywalking" here. His family evaded $500 million in taxes. He falsified his tax records and bank applications for loans, he's defrauded so many people over he years. He endlessly attacks the fundamental foundations of the US justice system.

NYT, David Cay Johnston, Michael Lewis and about a million other journalists and reporters have exposed Trumps transgressions. There is no shortage of examples here exposing a lifelong track record of unethical behavior, fraud, graft, scheming, and criminal behavior.

And then there's the whole sedition thing and undermining an election part! OMG, how much worse can it get? I guess he hasn't openly murdered anyone yet. But he said he could, so don't put it past him!

If there's ANYONE worthy of having the screws put to him by our judicial system, it's Donald John Felonious Treasonous Trump. Again, based on your take on the situation.

* But as we all know, justice should be "blind." It shouldn't matter if you're a poor MacDonalds worker or the former President of the United States who hits and kills a pedestrian while drunk driving, BOTH should face the consequences of committing a terrible crime. Both should be prosecuted without prejudice by our judicial system and adjudicate by a jury of one's peers.

---

You don't believe any of this.

If you thought justice was blind, you would not take extenuating circumstances into account. You wouldn't have liberal policies of letting criminals walk. You would insist on a 15 year-old who commit car jacking to be punished equally as an adult. But prosecution and enforcement of law, as well as all of the plea bargains, take into account the cost to society, including cost of hiring more prosecutors and wanting to give people who have a chance at redemption a greater opportunity.

That is what's called prosecutorial discretion.

In my perfect world, Trump would disappear from the face of this earth. This is not about him. This conviction will not hurt him. Again, if you think he will spend one day in jail from this, you are kidding yourself. He will be helped by this in his presidential election.

And my post was not about him. Read my word calmly and for what they mean. Not for what you think I would write. But what I actually WROTE!

Do you know what pyrrhic victory means? Why do you think I repeated that twice? Because the little positive jolt we feel from this comes at a significant cost.

I don't mind him being prosecuted. I don't mind him being humiliated. IF YOU STILL CANNOT GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD THAT I WISH NOTHING BUT FAILURE FOR HIM, YOU ARE BEING INTENTIONALLY DENSE AND STUPID.

I just believe this does the anti-Trump crowd no good.

The election interference and classified documents cases have more meaning. I am 100% for those cases. Why? Well, let me tell you for the 5th time in the hopes that people like you would ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WROTE.

You go to a common person and ask whether Trump should be punished for classifying payment made from his own funds to a porn star to keep her quiet under an NDA as legal expenses instead of as settlement payment even if he did so to not hurt his campaign, most people wouldn't care.

You tell people that Trump treated our most confidential classified information carelessly and recklessly that, if in the hands of the wrong people, could jeopardize the safety of our military, our country, and your family, would they care? Yes.

You tell people that Trump tried to coerce government officials to ignore your votes and your voice so that your vote doesn't count and so that he could fraudulently win, would they care? Yes.

This board doesn't know how to read or has had any meaningful experience in real life. I am convinced of it.

blungld said:

---

It is hard to fathom how no reasonable Republicans are stepping forward with even tame reprimands of Trump. How has this cult taken such hold that no one must speak ill of the delicate leader? Not one person of influence in the party saying maybe we shouldn't nominate a convicted felon? Not one person saying, hey Donald maybe you shouldn't cheat on your wife, pork a pornstar, pay her off to hide that info from voters, and then obstruct justice in a cover up. I mean that doesn't seem like a big stretch to be against those things, right?

When in this nation has there ever been this blind devotion before? Officials drop out of races for the tiniest fraction of what Trump has done. Why this man? By any objective assessment he is not a good or enlightened human. He is so undeserving of this idolatry (I guess like all authoritarians or beneficiaries of cult of personality he too is a POS human whose followers excuse every deficiency and immorality).

Even really bad parents tend to punish their child rather than the teacher when their kid misbehaves. But not the GOP, it's all the teacher, the principal, the school! My perfect child Trump is perfect! It's the systems fault!

So deep is the "loyalty" and need to protect the leader that one must not say anything and in fact (like all things Trump) act like it never happened or else it was all everybody else's fault. All anger directed at everything but the man who actually did the acts and made the decisions and no pause on hmmm maybe a person who does these things and shows this lack of character or judgement shouldn't be a president. Instead, pretend that Biden is just as bad or worse and that Trump is every lie he says rather than the things he actually does.

My brain just doesn't work this way. I hold no person in this place of worship where my world view must be shaped to protect them or to bend reality to their exultation. I do not understand this other way of thinking; the willingness to cheat, lie, and be deceived; and the need to project onto others your own tribalism and all the terrible things that you would do for your party onto people who would NOT do those same terrible things for their party.

---

It is a cult. It is a cult fed by the far right media, sycophants in Congress, and by the far left's looniness of their own and their obsession with him.

In any normal era in our history, a man like Trump would have been shamed into oblivion. We have become such a Tik-Tok swiping, youtube watching, mindless zombies that our sense of right and wrong have been warpped into protecting one's sense of worth and identity by worship or hatred of a single, obese, orange man by fighting to promote their tribe's respective propaganda.

calbear93 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

---

Are you actually reading my post?

When did I write he is not guilty? Please quote me.

Maybe it is you who misunderstand. The question was, even if there is no question on his guilt, is this the right case to break the norm.

---

Oh. I think I'm seeing your light.
You want him to be above certain laws, is that right?

---

I think short of drawing you a picture, you may not have this not be over your head.

I will however try again.

Would you be for breaching the historical norm of not prosecuting former presidents over jaywalking? How about speeding? How about perjury for misleading under oath (yes, I know he was impeached but not prosecuted for a crime)? Why not? Not serious and unifying enough that people would not understand the rationale for violating norms of not prosecuting what could be viewed as politically motivated. Maybe not serious enough that people may not think it is worth creating the jeopardy of creating a venue for future former presidents to be easily charged with crime like they are in some third world countries?

So the question is not whether there was actually a crime and whether there was actually a justifiable verdict. It was a question of whether this was a pyrrhic victory in the sense that the cost of enforcing this law based on circumstantial evidence for something that most people don't think is that important is worth throwing away one of the most important aspect of peaceful transition of power in this country.

I suspect you still don't get it.

---

So you're saying prosecution for a crime involves taking the entire picture as a whole then?*

If so, then this COMPLETELY debunks your entire narrative. That Felonious Trump has a very long track record of criminal and civil offenses means he's about the MOST DESERVING to be prosecuted for crimes. He shows ZERO remorse for his illegal and unethical actions and shows that he's more than willing to continue behaving in this manner. In other words, he's a proven recidivist. And we're not talking "jaywalking" here. His family evaded $500 million in taxes. He falsified his tax records and bank applications for loans, he's defrauded so many people over he years. He endlessly attacks the fundamental foundations of the US justice system.

NYT, David Cay Johnston, Michael Lewis and about a million other journalists and reporters have exposed Trumps transgressions. There is no shortage of examples here exposing a lifelong track record of unethical behavior, fraud, graft, scheming, and criminal behavior.

And then there's the whole sedition thing and undermining an election part! OMG, how much worse can it get? I guess he hasn't openly murdered anyone yet. But he said he could, so don't put it past him!

If there's ANYONE worthy of having the screws put to him by our judicial system, it's Donald John Felonious Treasonous Trump. Again, based on your take on the situation.

* But as we all know, justice should be "blind." It shouldn't matter if you're a poor MacDonalds worker or the former President of the United States who hits and kills a pedestrian while drunk driving, BOTH should face the consequences of committing a terrible crime. Both should be prosecuted without prejudice by our judicial system and adjudicate by a jury of one's peers.

---

This board doesn't know how to read or has had any meaningful experience in real life. I am convinced of it.

---

The extreme narcissism on display here

calbear93 said:

---

It is a cult. It is a cult fed by the far right media, sycophants in Congress, and by the far left's looniness of their own and their obsession with him.

---

I think I just heard you say Trump is the fault of the anti-Trump crowd.
Wow, nice spin.

Democrats should refer to Trump as a convicted felon at every opportunity. Repetition is the key to a successful message and we want people to wrestle with the notion of hiring a convicted felon for the most important job in the country! ⁦⁦ https://t.co/WLLMWatlkP

— Alex Soros (@AlexanderSoros) May 31, 2024

Like the Clintons, Obama, Biden and little ‘alex’ - all learned from their infamous master, Saul Alinsky… who revered Lucifer as the first ‘social activist.’ Amazing how Alex has no shame, explicitly advertising their methods. pic.twitter.com/dwC1AuS6NP

— Delal57 (@Delal57123969) June 1, 2024

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

It is a cult. It is a cult fed by the far right media, sycophants in Congress, and by the far left's looniness of their own and their obsession with him.

---

I think I just heard you say Trump is the fault of the anti-Trump crowd.
Wow, nice spin.

---

I'll play the role of Concordtom with zero reading comprehension and all crazy all the time.

Wow, you spin to Trump while hearing him speak? Why the hell would you do that? I once heard fault in tennis is when you step over the line. Maybe golf? But Trump is the devil. So why do you like him? Confess you hate him. Like I did when I ran the Treasury cabinet with 80 Trillion budget. And people had me sign SOX certificate.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

It is a cult. It is a cult fed by the far right media, sycophants in Congress, and by the far left's looniness of their own and their obsession with him.

---

I think I just heard you say Trump is the fault of the anti-Trump crowd.
Wow, nice spin.

---

I'll play the role of Concordtom with zero reading comprehension and all crazy all the time.

Wow, you spin to Trump while hearing him speak? Why the hell would you do that? I once heard fault in tennis is when you step over the line. Maybe golf? But Trump is the devil. So why do you like him? Confess you hate him. Like I did when I ran the Treasury cabinet with 80 Trillion budget. And people had me sign SOX certificate.

---

Haha. AI_TomGPT

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

It is a cult. It is a cult fed by the far right media, sycophants in Congress, and by the far left's looniness of their own and their obsession with him.

---

I think I just heard you say Trump is the fault of the anti-Trump crowd.
Wow, nice spin.

---

I'll play the role of Concordtom with zero reading comprehension and all crazy all the time.

---

Some people do need help with reading comprehension. I've highlighted your own words for you to examine. It's right there, in plain English.

Quote:

---

It is a cult. It is a cult fed by the far right media, sycophants in Congress, and by the far left's looniness of their own and their obsession with him.

---

I understand that it's common for one to resort to personal attacks when feeling embarrassed. In fact, your response reminds of a popular adage that's been used a lot during these years of Trump:



You're right. I do always try to weave in a little something extra.

concordtom said:

---

3. But he DID commit the crimes, and if you don't know what they are then you didn't follow the case.

---

Slept with a porn actress. Disgusting but not a crime.

Paid her off with an NDA. Unsavory but not a crime.

Did it at least in part to keep it quiet before the election. Not a crime. Manipulating the media, controlling message, etc is literally done every single day by every single politician.

Recorded it in the books wrong. Fine, maybe this is a crime. But 34 Felonies? Outrageous.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

It is a cult. It is a cult fed by the far right media, sycophants in Congress, and by the far left's looniness of their own and their obsession with him.

---

I think I just heard you say Trump is the fault of the anti-Trump crowd.
Wow, nice spin.

---

I'll play the role of Concordtom with zero reading comprehension and all crazy all the time.

---

Some people do need help with reading comprehension. I've highlighted your own words for you to examine. It's right there, in plain English.

Quote:

---

It is a cult. It is a cult fed by the far right media, sycophants in Congress, and by the far left's looniness of their own and their obsession with him.

---

I understand that it's common for one to resort to personal attacks when feeling embarrassed. In fact, your response reminds of a popular adage that's been used a lot during these years of Trump:



You're right. I do always try to weave in a little something extra.

---

You quote and you still don't understand. Seriously, why are you such a prolific poster when you understand so little and add so little?

I will explain to you more clearly where your reading failed you.

The discussion was about cultish behavior. We were not calling the behavior itself being Trump the person. The crazy behavior is caused or reflected by the things I mentioned.

In the brilliant manner, you came back and asked if I am blaming Trump the person on the left. You are incredibly stupid. Can you please move on from my posts? I spend most of the discussion trying to explain the meaning of basic words to you.

blungld said:

---

So deep is the "loyalty" and need to protect the leader that one must not say anything and in fact (like all things Trump) act like it never happened or else it was all everybody else's fault. All anger directed at everything but the man who actually did the acts and made the decisions and no pause on hmmm maybe a person who does these things and shows this lack of character or judgement shouldn't be a president. Instead, pretend that Biden is just as bad or worse and that Trump is every lie he says rather than the things he actually does.

---

There is profound disdain of Trump within the Republican party. See the Never Trumpers, etc. There is an even greater feeling that Dems are using Lawfare, rigging the system, doing things that would never be done to any other citizen, etc. You may disagree with that assessment and that's perfectly fine. I am merely explaining my belief that the Trump haters hate is transcended by their hatred of what they believe Democrats are doing to get him.

bear2034 said:

---

Democrats should refer to Trump as a convicted felon at every opportunity. Repetition is the key to a successful message and we want people to wrestle with the notion of hiring a convicted felon for the most important job in the country! ⁦⁦ https://t.co/WLLMWatlkP

— Alex Soros (@AlexanderSoros) May 31, 2024

Like the Clintons, Obama, Biden and little ‘alex’ - all learned from their infamous master, Saul Alinsky… who revered Lucifer as the first ‘social activist.’ Amazing how Alex has no shame, explicitly advertising their methods. pic.twitter.com/dwC1AuS6NP

— Delal57 (@Delal57123969) June 1, 2024

---

He also taught that "people hurt" not organizations or corporations, and as a result you go at / after the individual.

I really worry that someone is going to take that to a very bad place by picking up a gun. I am actually surprised it hasn't happened already.

blungld said:

---

It is hard to fathom how no reasonable Republicans are stepping forward with even tame reprimands of Trump. ***

Even really bad parents tend to punish their child rather than the teacher when their kid misbehaves. But not the GOP, it's all the teacher, the principal, the school! My perfect child Trump is perfect! It's the systems fault!

So deep is the "loyalty" and need to protect the leader that one must not say anything and in fact (like all things Trump) act like it never happened or else it was all everybody else's fault. All anger directed at everything but the man who actually did the acts and made the decisions and no pause on hmmm maybe a person who does these things and shows this lack of character or judgement shouldn't be a president. Instead, pretend that Biden is just as bad or worse and that Trump is every lie he says rather than the things he actually does.

---

To use your example, Republicans are seeing that the teacher and principal are administering the rules and changing the rules on the fly to manipulate the system so that it only applies to their child.

No doubt, the MAGA crowd would support Trump no matter what. But I really think the vast majority of other Repubs would do exactly what you suggest if they believed the system was on the up and up.

This is not about Trump. It is about real or perceived beliefs about fundamental fairness.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Fine, maybe this is a crime.

---

Yeah it is. The jury said so. That's how we know. In America.

….and Republicans are very sensitive to fundamental fairness…which is why they are criminalizing women exercising their reproductive rights…unless of course one of their daughters or mistresses get knocked up and then it's off to the concierge doctor.

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

3. But he DID commit the crimes, and if you don't know what they are then you didn't follow the case.

---

Slept with a porn actress. Disgusting but not a crime.

Paid her off with an NDA. Unsavory but not a crime.

Did it at least in part to keep it quiet before the election. Not a crime. Manipulating the media, controlling message, etc is literally done every single day by every single politician.

Recorded it in the books wrong. Fine, maybe this is a crime. But 34 Felonies? Outrageous.

---

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

That crime helped him win the presidency. Outrageous!

tequila4kapp said:

---

blungld said:

---

So deep is the "loyalty" and need to protect the leader that one must not say anything and in fact (like all things Trump) act like it never happened or else it was all everybody else's fault. All anger directed at everything but the man who actually did the acts and made the decisions and no pause on hmmm maybe a person who does these things and shows this lack of character or judgement shouldn't be a president. Instead, pretend that Biden is just as bad or worse and that Trump is every lie he says rather than the things he actually does.

---

There is profound disdain of Trump within the Republican party. See the Never Trumpers, etc. There is an even greater feeling that Dems are using Lawfare, rigging the system, doing things that would never be done to any other citizen, etc. You may disagree with that assessment and that's perfectly fine. I am merely explaining my belief that the Trump haters hate is transcended by their hatred of what they believe Democrats are doing to get him.

---

Jeanine Pirro broadcast angrily to millions application of the rule of law is not Lawfare, but Warfare.
Jesse Watters broadcast angrily to millions that they will get their Vengeance!

Are you feeling any outrage against this dangerous messaging?
Or are you inspired by it?

tequila4kapp said:

---

blungld said:

---

It is hard to fathom how no reasonable Republicans are stepping forward with even tame reprimands of Trump. ***

Even really bad parents tend to punish their child rather than the teacher when their kid misbehaves. But not the GOP, it's all the teacher, the principal, the school! My perfect child Trump is perfect! It's the systems fault!

So deep is the "loyalty" and need to protect the leader that one must not say anything and in fact (like all things Trump) act like it never happened or else it was all everybody else's fault. All anger directed at everything but the man who actually did the acts and made the decisions and no pause on hmmm maybe a person who does these things and shows this lack of character or judgement shouldn't be a president. Instead, pretend that Biden is just as bad or worse and that Trump is every lie he says rather than the things he actually does.

---

To use your example, Republicans are seeing that the teacher and principal are administering the rules and changing the rules on the fly to manipulate the system so that it only applies to their child.

No doubt, the MAGA crowd would support Trump no matter what. But I really think the vast majority of other Repubs would do exactly what you suggest if they believed the system was on the up and up.

This is not about Trump. It is about real or perceived beliefs about fundamental fairness.

---

Yo, listen to yourself. You are being manipulated. You're arguing perception because you know that facts are on the side of this prosecution, but you're goi g back to your emotions.

You just need to check yourself.

tequila4kapp said:

---

blungld said:

---

So deep is the "loyalty" and need to protect the leader that one must not say anything and in fact (like all things Trump) act like it never happened or else it was all everybody else's fault. All anger directed at everything but the man who actually did the acts and made the decisions and no pause on hmmm maybe a person who does these things and shows this lack of character or judgement shouldn't be a president. Instead, pretend that Biden is just as bad or worse and that Trump is every lie he says rather than the things he actually does.

---

There is profound disdain of Trump within the Republican party. See the Never Trumpers, etc. There is an even greater feeling that Dems are using Lawfare, rigging the system, doing things that would never be done to any other citizen, etc. You may disagree with that assessment and that's perfectly fine. I am merely explaining my belief that the Trump haters hate is transcended by their hatred of what they believe Democrats are doing to get him.

---

Let's just pretend that everything you say is true, this makes him a good president? Members of his party hate him. Democrats hate him. So we should all rally around him and excuse his behavior? How about the more reasonable position that you find a GOOD person who does not lie and does not inspire hate by a huge amount of Americans and even more amongst our allies. Or is the reasonable position this: you don't like the guy I like well I'll show you! I am going to make you all have to have him as your leader and I am willing to forgive and defend anything to shove him down your throat.


Shouldn't we all have a president we can at least admire and trust even if we have policy differences? When and why did it become so important for so many conservatives to want to inflict things on others and to take pleasure in being opposite and antagonistic?

JimSox said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Fine, maybe this is a crime.

---

Yeah it is. The jury said so. That's how we know. In America.

---

In Joe Biden's America, they imprison political opponents.

bear2034 said:

---

JimSox said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Fine, maybe this is a crime.

---

Yeah it is. The jury said so. That's how we know. In America.

---

In Joe Biden's America, they imprison political opponents.

---

One, he is not in prison. Two, Joe Biden did not have a hand in the state trial. Three, Trump did exactly what he is charged with and it was proven so this is NOT a made up show trial. Four, had you been on the jury and sat there and heard all the evidence and done your job you too would have voted guilty. Five, please try and think before posting and not just spit out little irrational sound bytes that you heard elsewhere.

blungld said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

JimSox said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Fine, maybe this is a crime.

---

Yeah it is. The jury said so. That's how we know. In America.

---

In Joe Biden's America, they imprison political opponents.

---

One, he is not in prison. Two, Joe Biden did not have a hand in the state trial. Three, Trump did exactly what he is charged with and it was proven so this is NOT a made up show trial. Four, had you been on the jury and sat there and heard all the evidence and done your job you too would have voted guilty. Five, please try and think before posting and not just spit out little irrational sound bytes that you heard elsewhere.

---

One, you are foolish to think the goal isn't to imprison Trump. His supporters are in in prison. Two, there are other ongoing trials involving Trump and Leticia James and Fani Willis have visited the Biden White House on multiple occasions. Three, you know that it's a show trial because Democrats or anyone else isn't going to court for this. Four, uh, no.. Five, please try and think before posting and not just spit out little irrational sound bytes that you heard elsewhere.

34 REASONS the Bragg-Biden Show Trial should have been TOSSED OUT; each one alone providing grounds for a mistrial:

1. Unconstitutional Gag Order that prevented President Trump from criticizing the trial, exposing the many conflicts that should have forced the judge to recuse…

— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) June 1, 2024

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Just a moment of high.

I felt bad for the tv people. They had to tighten it up.
Nicolle Wallace almost giggled but the caught herself. Everyone else was focused on pursing lips with frowns. I had to laugh at that.

---

different strokes... nothing about this whole thing comes even close to making me giggle... and i enjoy a good laugh

---

Today is most definitely funny

---

similar views on most issues, but entirely different senses of humor (also recalling the bill maher thread) ... it happens

---

To me, 9 years into this, it's like claiming solemnity and dignity when you're in the ring in the 12th round up against a monkey in a clown outfit

---

Okay, I might be coming around on the humorous aspects of this...

People shouting at Trump, "Lock him up! Lock him up!" That is seriously funny! (taste of his own medicine) I think it might catch on!

Not election interference (because of who did the interfering)

Steele was the source of multiple major pre-election stories claiming to link Trump to the Kremlin, most notably the two below. Worse, Clinton issued official reactions to these stories as if the source were not her employee:
https://t.co/dqXsuP3BLjhttps://t.co/D5gpUqw516 https://t.co/MgaMehYmyX pic.twitter.com/0VqWfLHpMW

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) June 2, 2024

Zippergate said:

---

Not election interference (because of who did the interfering)

Steele was the source of multiple major pre-election stories claiming to link Trump to the Kremlin, most notably the two below. Worse, Clinton issued official reactions to these stories as if the source were not her employee:
https://t.co/dqXsuP3BLjhttps://t.co/D5gpUqw516 https://t.co/MgaMehYmyX pic.twitter.com/0VqWfLHpMW

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) June 2, 2024

---

Didn't she also misclassify the payments she made for this hit piece against Trump?

THE BUSINESS RECORDS DOUBLE STANDARD

In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was fined $8,000 for violating federal campaign finance laws. Why? Her team falsely reported the funding of the Steele Dossier as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting.”

Actually this… pic.twitter.com/Fw5cYtSkey

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) June 1, 2024

Rules for thee but not for me. What is the key distinction between Hillary's campaign violation versus recent news?

With Hillary's violation, there wasn't a Manhattan prosecutor politically motivated to bring an unprecedented case to trial.