Man Loses It Online Because Grand Rapids Law Enforcement Stood With Trump

[noonereal]

Yeah, they sure did. So either you were in a coma in 2020 and are grossly ignorant or you're lying. Which is it?

Intelligent.

No one took party affiliation surveys of the protests in 2020.

 

[Jarlaxle]

ALL public employees unions, shouldn't exist.

Even Franklin Roosevelt knew that.

I was wondering what happened to Jake Starkey

The orderlies caught him?

No democrat supported any of that behavior.

But your orange God is promising to pardon his violent cult.

Join us in reality.

It's physically impossible for anyone to believe that and still clothe and feed himself.

 

[yidnar]

Yeah, they sure did. So either you were in a coma in 2020 and are grossly ignorant or you're lying. Which is it?

both ...

 

[talksalot]

Yeah, I think perhaps police overall lean towards the talk-tough absolutism that Don Trump stump-speeches about.

But, would those police be as likely to support him if they re-freshened their views after watching Don Trump's supporters savagely beat the crap out those uniformed police on January 6th?

And watch it knowing full well that Don Trump....who set the attack in motion....was sitting on his kiester just a couple miles away watching it on the telly and doing zero to mitigate the violence, or discourage the attacks on the police. As the Commander in Chief for the United States of America.....he sat on his fat butt. And watched and cheered.

For three hours he watched our uniformed police be savaged by his supporters. And at the end of the violence he told the attackers that: "We love you; you're very special,"

I struggle to understand that dichotomy.

-------------------------------------------------------------


Ummm?
Poster 'talksalot'....you may wanna re-think that coupling.
Trust me, it makes you ---or rather, your avatar ---- look rather uninformed.

Notably ....and in the event you simply did not know.....well, Don Trump too had a formal complaint filed against him for sexual assault. And a court of law and unanimous jury decisions.....found he was responsible for sexually assaulting E.Jean Caroll, which led.....with other nuances ....to something like a $60 million judgment against him.

I think that is distinction that makes a difference vis-a-vis Tara Reade.
---------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

Tara Reade filed a formal complaint when Biden assaulted her. She also shared what happened to her with friends and family, at the time. Those people corroborate her accusation. Her fellow Democrats had her fired.

After NY did away with the statute of limitations, Trump had an accusation from thirty years ago brought before the court with absolutely no evidence or corroboration so a biased judge and jury could decide they think he did it. Obvious election interference by Democrats.

Only corrupt Democrats don't see the difference.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Trump had an accusation from thirty years ago brought before the court with absolutely no evidence or corroboration so a biased judge and jury could decide they think he did it."

--------------------------------------------------

Notably, that 'biased jury' was winnowed & sifted by Don Trump's competent attorneys applying their experience to a rigorous voir dire. So, despite them getting the jury they wanted......that jury, in a unanimous decision, found Don Trump liable for not only sexual assault, but also defamation. Twice.

And in one of those trials the jury heard this from Trump:

"“It’s true you can grab them by the pussy?” Carroll’s lawyer, the prominent women’s rights attorney Roberta Kaplan, asks.

Trump replies, “Well, that’s what—if you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately, or fortunately.”

("Fortunately"???? For whom? The woman owning the groped pudendum, or fortunate for the groper?)


"Elsewhere in the deposition tape, Trump answers a question from Kaplan about his claim that Jessica Leeds, who testified last week that Trump forcibly kissed and groped her on an airplane in the 1970s, “would not be my first choice” to “go after.”

Then, unprompted, Trump goes on to assess Kaplan’s sexual desirability. “You wouldn’t be a choice of mine either, to be honest with you. I hope you’re not insulted,” he said.
He went on, “I wouldn’t, in any circumstances, have any interest in you.”

(OK, Don.....that surely makes you a sympathetic defendant. For example, it is 'fortunate' you can grab women by the pudendum; but not those who wouldn't be your "first choice".)

Geeeeez!!!


Honest, does anybody wonder why this bloke was found liable for both sexual assault and defamation?

Gimme a break.

 

[Chillicothe]

Obvious election interference.........

Well, as long as poster 'talksalot' has thrown "election interference' on the table, let's go there:

In 2015, paying off a porn queen to keep quiet about another of his adulterous affairs so the Presidential candidate wouldn't have to explain to the concerned American citizenry the nature of his character, and his infidelity to yet another wife he cheated on.

The American public had a need and a right to know the character of a candidate for the highest office in the land. He hid that. Obviously so as to interfere with the election.

So there is that.

 

[talksalot]

--------------------------------------------------

Notably, that 'biased jury' was winnowed & sifted by Don Trump's competent attorneys applying their experience to a rigorous voir dire. So, despite them getting the jury they wanted......that jury, in a unanimous decision, found Don Trump liable for not only sexual assault, but also defamation. Twice.

And in one of those trials the jury heard this from Trump:

"“It’s true you can grab them by the pussy?” Carroll’s lawyer, the prominent women’s rights attorney Roberta Kaplan, asks.

Trump replies, “Well, that’s what—if you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately, or fortunately.”

("Fortunately"???? For whom? The woman owning the groped pudendum, or fortunate for the groper?)


"Elsewhere in the deposition tape, Trump answers a question from Kaplan about his claim that Jessica Leeds, who testified last week that Trump forcibly kissed and groped her on an airplane in the 1970s, “would not be my first choice” to “go after.”

Then, unprompted, Trump goes on to assess Kaplan’s sexual desirability. “You wouldn’t be a choice of mine either, to be honest with you. I hope you’re not insulted,” he said.
He went on, “I wouldn’t, in any circumstances, have any interest in you.”

(OK, Don.....that surely makes you a sympathetic defendant. For example, it is 'fortunate' you can grab women by the pudendum; but not those who wouldn't be your "first choice".)

Geeeeez!!!


Honest, does anybody wonder why this bloke was found liable for both sexual assault and defamation?

Gimme a break.

The jury....you've got to be kidding. Their decision was based on hate. They had nothing else.

When you take into account....she's lying, he doesn't even know her, this wouldn't have been brought to court if it wasn't Trump, it's a 30 year old accusation, absolutely no evidence or corroboration, it's politically motivated and corrupt.

I'd be snotty, too.

 

[Chillicothe]

The jury....you've got to be kidding. Their decision was based on hate. They had nothing else...........it's politically motivated and corrupt.

Can the forum expect the poster 'talksalot' to back up the above claims?
With either interviews or testimony from the jury members?
Or, is the poster simply venting because he is a fanboy of Don Trump's and is unhappy with any attempt to hold Don Trump accountable in a court of law?

Notably, these jury members....who, per 'talksalot' .....decided on their unanimous verdicts only due to hate of Don Trump, were rigorously screened via competent voir dire by Don Trump's own hired attorneys.

It seems not quite credible that the questionnaire and the questioning process by these experienced defense attorneys weren't able to uncover such biases.

Personally, I don't think that poster 'talksalot' is correct. Nor do I think poster 'talksalot' has any basis to make such a claim other than his own cult-like groupie-think*.

IMHO



*Now, my avatar will readily read any interviews or statements by jury members that the poster can offer the forum from credible informed sources.

 

[talksalot]

Can the forum expect the poster 'talksalot' to back up the above claims?
With either interviews or testimony from the jury members?
Or, is the poster simply venting because he is a fanboy of Don Trump's and is unhappy with any attempt to hold Don Trump accountable in a court of law?

Notably, these jury members....who, per 'talksalot' .....decided on their unanimous verdicts only due to hate of Don Trump, were rigorously screened via competent voir dire by Don Trump's own hired attorneys.

It seems not quite credible that the questionnaire and the questioning process by these experienced defense attorneys weren't able to uncover such biases.

Personally, I don't think that poster 'talksalot' is correct. Nor do I think poster 'talksalot' has any basis to make such a claim other than his own cult-like groupie-think*.

IMHO



*Now, my avatar will readily read any interviews or statements by jury members that the poster can offer the forum from credible informed sources.

Don't try to make it about me.

Where's the EVIDENCE that this woman was assaulted 30 years ago?

It was recently revealed that well over half the jurors in the OJ Simpson murder trial believed he was guilty but let him walk.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

He seems like a totally stable person.

I don't know where this guy has been, but fraternal police organizations have been endorsing politicians for as long as I can remember. In fact, he rants that it's "entirely unethical and PROBABLY illegal" so he doesn't even know. I truly don't understand why some people out there get so worked up over this stuff. Sometimes things irritate you enough to want to blow off steam, but evoking a stroke is not the best method. Plus, you just look insane.

Not sure what your point is. Could you elaborate?

 

[Chillicothe]

"Where's the EVIDENCE that this woman was assaulted 30 years ago?"

-----------------------------------------

You are asking my avatar for evidence?
?????
How would we know? We didn't attend the trial.

Do this, poster 'talksalot': Order up the transcript from the appropriate party. Read it. Carefully.

Then let the USMB group know what you think of the evidence.
And also, how you think the jury received and perceived the same evidence.

Thanx in advance.