ChiGoose

Do you honestly believe this? Do you truly believe that an entire jury would disregard their oaths for political purposes? Do you think that a guilty verdict by a jury is based entirely on political leanings and not at all on the facts presented at trial? Because I’ve read a lot of dumb ***** from ignorant fools on this site, but it’s still hard to believe some one would be this stupid.

In case anyone is wondering, the death penalty does not deter crime. In fact, states with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates than those without.

Do you believe juries to be infallible?

I don’t think the state should have the power to execute people.

It's "telling" that Dems are focused on the guy who is running against their candidate? It'd be really weird if they weren't...

After about three hours of deliberation, the jury found that Trump had defamed E. Jean Carroll They ordered $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages for a total of $83.3 millions

Actually this is just people who have no idea how the judicial system works making assumptions based on nothing and then being mad. Testimony and evidence at trial is limited to what is relevant to the case. You don’t get to introduce irrelevant evidence and you don’t get to go on an unrelated political rant just because you want to.

Here’s the actual fact: The judge made a ruling and Habba repeatedly ignored that. Even if you disagree with a judge’s ruling, repeatedly ignoring their ruling is a good way to find yourself in contempt of court.

Trump was already found to have committed sexual assault in a court of law, so he wasn’t allowed to dispute that verdict in this trial. He had to keep his testimony to the issues relevant in this case, which is about defamation. He just didn’t want to do that.

Yes. Multiple GOP officials have said they won’t do a border deal because they don’t want to do something that might make the Dems look good before the election. The GOP wants the border to be a disaster because it benefits them politically and they think their voters are ignorant enough to think otherwise even when they admit publicly.

SoCal Deek seemed like a good dude. Generally engaged in good faith. Hopefully he’s found something more fun to do than spend time in this cesspool.

“Let’s do something that makes us very unpopular because a generation or two from now, we could have some more voters” -The brilliant Dem immigration plan, apparently I think that the border crisis cannot be solved except for by Congress. Simply militarizing the border will be insufficient because not only would it require an insane amount of resources, many immigrants cross into the US legally and then overstay their welcome. So even if the border was super secure with a bit scary fence and people shooting anyone who gets close to it, you’re still going to have a sizable problem. You need a comprehensive solution that actually gets to the root causes of the issues in addition to more security. But the Dems can’t do that without the GOP who repeatedly admit that they don’t want to solve it. You can do patchwork attempts to mitigate but without Congress taking action, you’re not going to be able to handle the numbers we are currently seeing.

Ok, since it’s obvious that the GOP doesn’t want to solve the border crisis and they admit that they won’t do it for political reasons, yet so many here seem to believe both that the Dems want the border crisis and that the issue hurts them: What is the alleged Dem theory of the case here? Get more immigrants in so that people like Dems less?

“People who wanted law enforcement to do their jobs also want law enforcement to follow the laws.” Shocking!

Are there actually people out there who are so self-deluded that they actually believe that the GOP wants to solve the border crisis? It defies all evidence, logic, root cause analysis, and understanding of political science, so it’s hard for me to believe that there are rubes who actually buy that.

I’m sorry that facts are so hard for you. Must be tough.

Simple: You need proof of intentionality and mere possession is not sufficient proof of intentionality. The laws were written for the more than one million people with security clearance. They clearly have a gap for elected officials.

“I don’t understand how laws and facts work. I just want an excuse to hate people I hate and justify bad behavior by people I like.”

I don’t have certainty that Biden had no knowledge of the documents. That’s why I’m glad he’s being investigated by someone appointed by Trump. I’m not so delusional as to think that the Vice President of the United States personally packs their things to leave, nor am I ignorant of the many failings of controls for government documents. However, at this point we have no evidence that Biden or Pence were personally involved in intentionally taking documents. That may change with Biden depending on the investigation. But Trump was told he had documents and refused to return them despite having no right to them. Had he turned them over when notified, he wouldn’t be in any trouble. He’d be in the same camp as Biden and Pence. His refusal to do so is what makes him guilty.

I honestly don’t understand how people cannot differentiate between turning things over to law enforcement and refusing to turn things over to law enforcement. Feelings gotta feel, I guess. No facts or logic allowed…

You already admitted that you believed that Russia invaded Ukraine because they didn't want it to join NATO. Russia invaded Ukraine for the same reason it invaded other former Soviet republics. It wants to re-establish it's former "glory".

“No you are!” -The guy routinely parroting Russian talking points Very convincing and clever argument there!

Yes, it is very clear that you don’t understand what’s going on.

Depends on how things go in Ukraine. If the Chamberlain caucus gets their way and there’s a ceasefire that expands Russia’s control beyond the 2014 lines (or even just keeps those lines), then the next conflict will probably be another attempt on Kiev after reconsolidating their forces. If Putin gets his way and is able to install a puppet government in Kiev, then Transnistria is probably next. If he keeps being able to push through into Europe while the West continues to capitulate to him, he may try for a conflict with a NATO country like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, or even Poland if he doesn’t think NATO will live up to its Article V commitments.

I do love that your list of reasons for Russia invading Ukraine doesn’t mention anything about NATO and starts with the real reason that Putin / Russia is revanchist. We are in complete agreement there. I‘m just not optimistic that the guy who has isolated himself from any criticism or pushback will cease aggression once he successfully adds more Ukrainian territory after we stop supporting them and/or push for a ceasefire. Doesn’t seem to fit with the history of Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Putin’s whole worldview. He hates NATO and if he thinks he can force its end by showing they won’t honor Article V, he’s going to find it very tempting.