Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by snap infraction on Aug 3, 2023 8:38:58 GMT -5
Are you calling him a liar when he said he voted for Biden in 2020? An odd thing from a Trump supporter. not sure and don’t care who he voted for. All I know is that he defends and parrots Republican taking points on everything while claiming to be a democrat. Then republicans cite him to bolster their argument. It seems like he is letting republicans exploit his credentials and in exchange republicans give him some relevance. It’s actually quite sad
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 3, 2023 9:08:27 GMT -5
Are you calling him a liar when he said he voted for Biden in 2020? An odd thing from a Trump supporter. not sure and don’t care who he voted for. All I know is that he defends and parrots Republican taking points on everything while claiming to be a democrat. Then republicans cite him to bolster their argument. It seems like he is letting republicans exploit his credentials and in exchange republicans give him some relevance. It’s actually quite sad It's obvious he will say or do anything just to continue getting paid by the only people who want to see or hear from him...the right wing media. And right now the only thing the right wing media wants to hear is that Trump is a victim. AD is not unique in that regard. Most of the GOP is willing to say whatever it takes to remain relevant with the redhats and that includes standing up and defending a criminal.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Aug 3, 2023 9:32:19 GMT -5
not sure and don’t care who he voted for. All I know is that he defends and parrots Republican taking points on everything while claiming to be a democrat. Then republicans cite him to bolster their argument. It seems like he is letting republicans exploit his credentials and in exchange republicans give him some relevance. It’s actually quite sad It's obvious he will say or do anything just to continue getting paid by the only people who want to see or hear from him...the right wing media. And right now the only thing the right wing media wants to hear is that Trump is a victim. AD is not unique in that regard. Most of the GOP is willing to say whatever it takes to remain relevant with the redhats and that includes standing up and defending a criminal. Please. "AD" is Adrian Peterson.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 3, 2023 9:48:20 GMT -5
It's obvious he will say or do anything just to continue getting paid by the only people who want to see or hear from him...the right wing media. And right now the only thing the right wing media wants to hear is that Trump is a victim. AD is not unique in that regard. Most of the GOP is willing to say whatever it takes to remain relevant with the redhats and that includes standing up and defending a criminal. Please. "AD" is Adrian Peterson. LOL. Actually, as I typed it, I thought of Laker Anthony Davis, also known as AD.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by kaz on Aug 3, 2023 17:02:45 GMT -5
not sure and don’t care who he voted for. All I know is that he defends and parrots Republican taking points on everything while claiming to be a democrat. Then republicans cite him to bolster their argument. It seems like he is letting republicans exploit his credentials and in exchange republicans give him some relevance. It’s actually quite sad It's obvious he will say or do anything just to continue getting paid by the only people who want to see or hear from him...the right wing media. And right now the only thing the right wing media wants to hear is that Trump is a victim. AD is not unique in that regard. Most of the GOP is willing to say whatever it takes to remain relevant with the redhats and that includes standing up and defending a criminal. Your opinion is irrelevant.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 3, 2023 20:14:47 GMT -5
LOL...so ol' Al just made up a new legal standard out of thin air, just for his beloved leader of the cult, eh? Dude needs to just stop. He's making a fool of himself. What standard did he make up? Seems to be saying what several other legal experts are saying. Particularly with this latest indictment being based on an old 1870 statute.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 3, 2023 22:17:51 GMT -5
LOL...so ol' Al just made up a new legal standard out of thin air, just for his beloved leader of the cult, eh? Dude needs to just stop. He's making a fool of himself. What standard did he make up? Seems to be saying what several other legal experts are saying. Particularly with this latest indictment being based on an old 1870 statute. He is suggesting that it isn't enough that guilt be proven beyond the normal standard of reasonable doubt, rather that it requires some sort of super duper version of it; a Nixonian standard, whatever that is.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 4, 2023 7:21:07 GMT -5
What standard did he make up? Seems to be saying what several other legal experts are saying. Particularly with this latest indictment being based on an old 1870 statute. He is suggesting that it isn't enough that guilt be proven beyond the normal standard of reasonable doubt, rather that it requires some sort of super duper version of it; a Nixonian standard, whatever that is. Hmmmm.... so you don't think that a situation that involves a historic attempt to jail a former president should require somewhat more than "reasonable" doubt? His statement was: "If the attorney general appointed by the incumbent president authorizes the prosecution of the president's chief election rival, the evidence of a serious crime should be overwhelming. His guilt should be clear beyond doubt, so as to avoid any reasonable suspicion that the prosecution was motivated, even in part, by partisan consideration.Compare reasonable doubt to beyond doubt. And remember, he is saying to bring the charges the prosecutor should have overwhelming evidence. If he goes to trial the standard of reasonable doubt should still apply. Your bias is showing.
|
|
Enter your message here...
Godlike Member
|
Post by trnyerheadncough on Aug 4, 2023 7:42:03 GMT -5
He is suggesting that it isn't enough that guilt be proven beyond the normal standard of reasonable doubt, rather that it requires some sort of super duper version of it; a Nixonian standard, whatever that is. Hmmmm.... so you don't think that a situation that involves a historic attempt to jail a former president should require somewhat more than "reasonable" doubt? His statement was: "If the attorney general appointed by the incumbent president authorizes the prosecution of the president's chief election rival, the evidence of a serious crime should be overwhelming. His guilt should be clear beyond doubt, so as to avoid any reasonable suspicion that the prosecution was motivated, even in part, by partisan consideration.Compare reasonable doubt to beyond doubt. And remember, he is saying to bring the charges the prosecutor should have overwhelming evidence. If he goes to trial the standard of reasonable doubt should still apply. Your bias is showing. Hmmmm.... so you don't think that a situation that involves a historic attempt to jail a former president should require somewhat more than "reasonable" doubt?No. Nothing in the constitution suggests such a thing, nor should we magically dream up a new standard of proof in criminal prosecutions just because someone is a former president.
|
|
That's TrnYerHeadnCough...
"Champion Douche -- 2012 AND 2013"
Back to Back...they may have to retire the contest...
"Bowl Champion Douche --2012-2013"
Get it right.
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 4, 2023 8:30:07 GMT -5
He is suggesting that it isn't enough that guilt be proven beyond the normal standard of reasonable doubt, rather that it requires some sort of super duper version of it; a Nixonian standard, whatever that is. Hmmmm.... so you don't think that a situation that involves a historic attempt to jail a former president should require somewhat more than "reasonable" doubt? His statement was: "If the attorney general appointed by the incumbent president authorizes the prosecution of the president's chief election rival, the evidence of a serious crime should be overwhelming. His guilt should be clear beyond doubt, so as to avoid any reasonable suspicion that the prosecution was motivated, even in part, by partisan consideration.Compare reasonable doubt to beyond doubt. And remember, he is saying to bring the charges the prosecutor should have overwhelming evidence. If he goes to trial the standard of reasonable doubt should still apply. Your bias is showing. So a tier of justice for former presidents and a different one for you and me. Got it.
|
|
Make America Great Again !!!
Supreme Being-like Member
|
Post by Panama pfRedd on Aug 4, 2023 9:21:53 GMT -5
We actually have a three tier justice system. One for democrats, one for Republicans and one for the rest of us except for rich white liberals who fall under the one for democrats category.
|
|
................................ ................................ = Panama pfRedd - 2021 Regular Season Champion = ............................... ................................
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 4, 2023 10:11:19 GMT -5
We actually have a three tier justice system. One for democrats, one for Republicans and one for the rest of us except for rich white liberals who fall under the one for democrats category. Are you a supporter of that system? If not, what would you change?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 4, 2023 10:31:43 GMT -5
Hmmmm.... so you don't think that a situation that involves a historic attempt to jail a former president should require somewhat more than "reasonable" doubt? His statement was: "If the attorney general appointed by the incumbent president authorizes the prosecution of the president's chief election rival, the evidence of a serious crime should be overwhelming. His guilt should be clear beyond doubt, so as to avoid any reasonable suspicion that the prosecution was motivated, even in part, by partisan consideration.Compare reasonable doubt to beyond doubt. And remember, he is saying to bring the charges the prosecutor should have overwhelming evidence. If he goes to trial the standard of reasonable doubt should still apply. Your bias is showing. So a tier of justice for former presidents and a different one for you and me. Got it. That is such a naive statement. He said essentially if you are going to try to jail a former president, knowing all the damage that this action does to us in the world, then you better make sure your evidence, case, whatever, is open and shut. A slam dunk. Once he goes to trial it is still "beyond a reasonable doubt."
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 4, 2023 10:54:30 GMT -5
So a tier of justice for former presidents and a different one for you and me. Got it. That is such a naive statement. He said essentially if you are going to try to jail a former president, knowing all the damage that this action does to us in the world, then you better make sure your evidence, case, whatever, is open and shut. A slam dunk. Once he goes to trial it is still "beyond a reasonable doubt." What damage does it do to us in the world? What are you talking about? He isn't POTUS. He's FORMER POTUS. As far as his impact on government or geo-political policy, he's a nobody; "...just a slob like one of us.". The only downside to American prestige is that no country is ever going to ask him to come on over and help monitor their election as Jimmy Carter used to do. Other than that, zip.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 4, 2023 11:23:49 GMT -5
That is such a naive statement. He said essentially if you are going to try to jail a former president, knowing all the damage that this action does to us in the world, then you better make sure your evidence, case, whatever, is open and shut. A slam dunk. Once he goes to trial it is still "beyond a reasonable doubt." What damage does it do to us in the world? What are you talking about? He isn't POTUS. He's FORMER POTUS. As far as his impact on government or geo-political policy, he's a nobody; "...just a slob like one of us.". The only downside to American prestige is that no country is ever going to ask him to come on over and help monitor their election as Jimmy Carter used to do. Other than that, zip.
|
|