Jacinda

[TheDemonLord]

True ... It would be difficult to convict Trump in a criminal court of Law because of the high level of proof required. But ... the standard for impeachment is different. The circumstantial evidence (including Trump’s own words) ... his reported glee at the invasion of the Capitol ... and his failure to immediately speak out against the violence. and not to mention his weak admonition to the insurrectionists ... to “go home” ... would (Should.. ??) have persuaded most Senators that he either intended it to happen ... or was (at the very least) extremely stupid in saying what he said.

The simple fact is that Trump was willing to risk people’s lives ... in the service of his lies.

Ah yes, Impeachment.

2-0.

So, by your logic, I get to factually say that most senators didn't think he intended it to happen.

[TheDemonLord]

Because he didn't give a fuck about the common man.

He'd have had TDL raped by Proud Boys just for fun.

Maybe try turkey fat as preemptive.

It seems my Fan Club are on some serious homoerotic fetishization binge. It's flattering and all, but when it gets to this length, it's just laughable.

But hey - If Trump doesn't give a fuck about the Common Man, than Biden (based on his policies and their outcomes) actively hates the Common Man.

[FJRider]

So, by your logic, I get to factually say that most senators didn't think he intended it to happen.

Most of what you post in these forums is bullshit. Usually just your opinion ... or a theory.



Getting to say anything "Factually" ... would be new.



Just saying ...

[TheDemonLord]

Most of what you post in these forums is bullshit. Usually just your opinion ... or a theory.



Getting to say anything "Factually" ... would be new.



Just saying ...

Except 2-0 isn't my opinion...

it's Fact

[FJRider]

Except 2-0 isn't my opinion...

it's Fact

The post you quoted of mine is fact.


The "Fact" you didn't argue THAT confirms it...




Just saying ...

[pete376403]

Except 2-0 isn't my opinion...

it's Fact

Oh FFS - as long as the Repubs had a Senate majority Trump was never going to be convicted, no matter what he did. You waffle on about integrity and so on, yet you seem to admire Trump and the repubs who have appear to have none. Playing and winning with a stacked deck does not make the player any good, just a cheater.

[husaberg]

Oh FFS - as long as the Repubs had a Senate majority Trump was never going to be convicted, no matter what he did. You waffle on about integrity and so on, yet you seem to admire Trump and the repubs who have appear to have none. Playing and winning with a stacked deck does not make the player any good, just a cheater.

even the publicans admitted he was guilty of inciting it only not finding him guilty "because they delayed the hearing until he was out of office"

“There’s no question” that Trump “is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,” McConnell said just after the Senate acquitted Trump of inciting the attack. “No question about it.”
But “the question is moot,” McConnell said, because as a former president, “Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction.”
“After intense reflection, I believe the best constitutional reading shows that Article 2 Section 4 exhausts the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached, tried or convicted,” McConnell said.
“It’s the president, it’s the vice president, and civil officers. We have no power to convict a former office holder who is now a private citizen,
Mr. McConnell, who orchestrated the impeachment acquittal of former President Donald J. Trump and blocked the naming of an independent, bipartisan commission to examine the attack, was among the most blunt in his defense of the only Republicans serving on the committee that rose from that proposal’s ashes.
“Traditionally, the view of the national party committees is that we support all members of our party, regardless of their positions on some issues,

[TheDemonLord]

Oh FFS - as long as the Repubs had a Senate majority Trump was never going to be convicted, no matter what he did. You waffle on about integrity and so on, yet you seem to admire Trump and the repubs who have appear to have none. Playing and winning with a stacked deck does not make the player any good, just a cheater.

If you don't consider what happened an Insurrection, then not finding him guilty of something you don't believe happened is neither proof of admiration or proof of a lack of integrity.

Now, if all those protestors had been armed to the Teeth (reminder that this is America and the 2A exists for this very reason), there's a possibility I might be able to consider it an insurrection.

If the Dems hadn't spent all of Trumps Presidency and in particular 2020 stirring up BLM protests which caused far more Death, Destruction and resulted in an actual secession attempt, then I might be able to consider it incitement.

If Trump hadn't told the crowd in the same breath that he gave a direction, the manner in which it should be done, then I might be less forgiving.

But all of those things happened - so No.

And isn't it funny that when I point out certain biases, I'm lambasted, yet when you point to certain biases - it's the gods' honest truth.

[sugilite:Me]

And isn't it funny that when I point out certain biases, I'm lambasted, yet when you point to certain biases - it's the gods' honest truth.

You want Truth? Take Trump out of the equation on Jan 6th. Had Trump had not made that speech, would of the "incident" of ever happened?
Not one fucken chance.

[TheDemonLord]

You want Truth? Take Trump out of the equation on Jan 6th. Had Trump had not made that speech, would of the "incident" of ever happened?
Not one fucken chance.

An interesting question.

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm charitable, so let me grant you that without the Trump speech, there'd have been no Jan the 6th.

Whatever can I counter with?

Simple: Without widespread Mail-in voting, there wouldn't have been any doubts. And I'd hypothesize that had we had 'normal' voting procedures (relative to each state in question), we wouldn't have seen the large number of irregularities.

And to be clear Irregularities does not mean fraud, it means statistically unlikely events (e.g. those that have not happened in 250 years of voting data).

Or if you don't wish to acknowledge that part, how about the 'fortification' of the Election? You have to acknowledge that there was certainly a fair amount of Cabal-esque behaviour amongst major institutions (Media and Social Media) that only seemed to go one way?

One of my favourite shows back when Discovery Channel was awesome (oh how the Mighty have Fallen...) was Seconds from Disaster - and they used to have a tag line 'In every disaster there is a chain of events, break a link and the crisis is averted' (or something like that).

So yeah - I'll grant you no Trump Speech no riot, but in the same breath - no massive change in voting law no riot, no 'fortification' no riot etc. etc.

[R650R]

Former PM Keys and brothel owners set to do more for the housing crisis than Jacinda/kiwibuild....

https://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/hom...operty-venture

[pete376403]

Former PM Keys and brothel owners set to do more for the housing crisis than Jacinda/kiwibuild....

https://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/hom...operty-venture

Both Chows and Keys are experts at having people fucked for money. A match made in heaven.

[husaberg]

Both Chows and Keys are experts at having people fucked for money. A match made in heaven.

A couple of gems

The joint venture with the Keys would be known as Stonewood Key Capital, and would focus on raising capital from wholesale investors, with a goal of reaching $100 million within 18 months.

In November 2020, the brothers launched Stonewood Capital to provide an alternative to bank funding for the group's developments by franchisees and licensees.

Stonewood Group director John Chow said lack of land continued to be central to the housing crisis and the new business was about raising funds to buy more land.

[pritch]

There is a news story covered by all the main media organisations in the US: ABC, MSN, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, etc. Even Breitbart covered the story although they did take a different approach. It's also covered in Britain by The Independent and the Daily Mail among others. That would make it seem an important event.

In the last forty years just eight foreign leaders have been invited to give the Harvard commencement address, and now Jacinda. This is a huge honour for the PM but our news media are taking it very calmly. They'd rather write silly pieces about the Festival atmosphere outside Parliament. Once again I'm struck by the thought that with so few jobs for journalists, you'd think the standard would be very high. Sadly it's not.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...-speech-in-may

[TheDemonLord]

There is a news story covered by all the main media organisations in the US: ABC, MSN, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, etc. Even Breitbart covered the story although they did take a different approach. It's also covered in Britain by The Independent and the Daily Mail among others. That would make it seem an important event.

In the last forty years just eight foreign leaders have been invited to give the Harvard commencement address, and now Jacinda. This is a huge honour for the PM but our news media are taking it very calmly. They'd rather write silly pieces about the Festival atmosphere outside Parliament. Once again I'm struck by the thought that with so few jobs for journalists, you'd think the standard would be very high. Sadly it's not.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...-speech-in-may

You mean to say New Zealand Journalists think that New Zealanders care more about New Zealand issues than Stalinda swanning around on the international stage?!?

Say it ain't so!

On a different note, My condolences to Harvard Students.