Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A majority of the voters picked Biden. But maybe the whining and crying has endeared him to more voters.
2020 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I dont' think you are following the discussion.which of them were convicted of a crime?
I dont' think you are following the discussion.
No.It is a tad difficult when you cannot stick to the topic.
So, a simple yes or no for you...if Trump is convicted of a crime that carries a mandatory prison sentence, should he serve it?
If I ever say that Trump is above the law, I'll say it exactly like that.Thanks, so you do think Trump is above the law, even though you claimed not to.
My work here is done
If I ever say that Trump is above the law, I'll say it exactly like that.
You asked whether he should be imprisoned if he is convicted of a crime requiring prison and I said no.
He's not above the law, and I just gave a clear example of how he is not.Yes, thus you think he is above the law. Why are you own words so confusing for you?
He's not above the law, and I just gave a clear example of how he is not.
No, I just don't think he should go to prison for the crimes that he is currently charged with.But you think he should be, that is the point. You want him to be above the law.
If you think she has evidence to convict him, on a specific law, it would be up to you to show it.She has the evidence and law on her side. Show specifically if she does not please.
No, I just don't think he should go to prison for the crimes that he is currently charged with.
I have been told she does not. I am asking for a clarification.If you think she has evidence to convict him, on a specific law, it would be up to you to show it.
My point was that even if she does, she doesn't seem at all capable of trying the case successfully.
She should be replaced.If you think she has evidence to convict him, on a specific law, it would be up to you to show it.
My point was that even if she does, she doesn't seem at all capable of trying the case successfully.
Wrong.Yet some of them carry a mandatory prison sentence and you do not think he should be held to...aka above the law
I think there is a lot of truth to that, unfortunately.the problem with your theory is Dems don't have common sense and are so guided by there primal emotions they are blinded to the future consequences of their actions...
These pussies line Seymour aren't doing anything. They can't even come out of their safe space to see disparaging comments. What are these cuckolds going to do when we lock their boy up? Crawl deeper into their safe space and put everyone on ignore?I think there is a lot of truth to that, unfortunately.
Ten years ago, I could have said, "but they did not become a judge without some kind of snap" But I've watched the Senate confirmation hearing questioning of Biden's judicial nominees and they are pitiful.
I am mighty curious as to what kind of system would gel, once the Democrats convince us that we no longer have a democratic republic. For the sake of my children, I don't want to find out.
Trump has already been taken into custody once for 37 felony counts. When ordered to show up for this trial, he was told he would be arrested again if he didn’t. He will be arrested. He’s already been processed once and under arrest before by Bragg, he should be used to it. Wtf are you talking about ?It won't happen. Not ever. It's a TDS pipe dream.
Plenty of posters here would absolutely send Trump to the slammer if they had the power. But they don't have the power and they never will.
The judges who do have the power? Many of them are TDS hardcases, with family members who are Democratic activists. They hate Trump with every bit as much passion as posters on here, and maybe more because hating Trump is literally their lives, and livelihoods.
But . . .
They are vested in the system, and they know that locking Trump up while he is the frontrunner for president would put the system in grave danger.
I don't mean "vested in the system" as in they think it's a rilly, rilly good system. I mean that they have made their lives in the system. To take the latest example, the Judge in the fraudulent fraud case. He is a judge, making a much better salary than his skills would justify in a free market, and his daughter runs a multi-million dollar Democratic Party fundraising organization.
He is not going to endanger the democratic republic that has made his livelihood and made his daughter wealthy. The U.S. Consitution is like the U.S. Dollar: it has value only because people believe it has value. That perception must be maintained or the people benefiting from it will lose and lose big.
Election irregularities from 2020 made people mad enough to turn out in droves in 2024. Try to take away their right to vote for the candidate of their choice and they will get mad enough to believe voting doesn't mean anything.
That happens and the U.S. Constitution could go the way of the Weimar Republic's Papiermark. This is what money looked like once Germans realized that it was phony:
View attachment 926291
Convince the American people that voting is phony, and those judges will find themselves at the mercy of whatever system replaces the one they will have destroyed. It won't be pretty, because they always hang the people who used to have power first. Especially the lawyers.