SoCal Deek Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 Just now, ChiGoose said: I'm obviously not saying that. Sure sounds an awful lot like it Goose. And be careful there because you just might be a closet fascist. 😉 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Sure sounds an awful lot like it Goose. And be careful there because you just might be a closet fascist. 😉 Only if you struggle with reading comprehension. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Because you’re comparing apples to oranges and then somehow being confused that people don’t agree that they are the same thing. You clearly don’t have a grasp of reality, which makes sense since you tend to react to facts with eye rolls. If you think that a plot to attack use fake electors to overturn the election is the same as a bad FISA warrant or the leaking of oppo research, then you’re just living in a fantasy world. If you’re upset about the Steele Dossier being leaked, I assume you’re furious about the 1023 form about Hunter Biden was made public. It’s pretty cool that the forum created a feature to let you know that you posted something factual: Tag notifications and post reactions really trigger you, don't they King? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 20 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Only if you struggle with reading comprehension. You call it what whatever you want, but if you routinely argue against the rights of people to disagree with the government…don’t look now…you’re an actual fascist. 😉 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: You call it what whatever you want, but if you routinely argue against the rights of people to disagree with the government…don’t look now…you’re an actual fascist. 😉 Well, I'm not doing that, so I guess I'll continue to call it poor reading comprehension on your part. Or maybe it's a strawman. In any case, it's bad faith and incorrect. There's no problem with disagreeing with the government. Trump is not indicted for saying he won the election. Just as Al Gore was not indicted for saying he didn't like the outcome of Bush v. Gore. But there is no world in which Trump, or anyone, believed that the fraudulent electors were anything other than fraudulent. It's not a reasonable claim. Especially when you have emails calling them "fake electors." John Eastman, one of the architects of the plan, admitted that they would lose 8-1 or 9-0 if it ever went to SCOTUS. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Well, I'm not doing that, so I guess I'll continue to call it poor reading comprehension on your part. Or maybe it's a strawman. In any case, it's bad faith and incorrect. There's no problem with disagreeing with the government. Trump is not indicted for saying he won the election. Just as Al Gore was not indicted for saying he didn't like the outcome of Bush v. Gore. But there is no world in which Trump, or anyone, believed that the fraudulent electors were anything other than fraudulent. It's not a reasonable claim. Especially when you have emails calling them "fake electors." John Eastman, one of the architects of the plan, admitted that they would lose 8-1 or 9-0 if it ever went to SCOTUS. So it’s your position that lawyers don’t have a right to argue a case that helps their client if it’s in disagreement with the government? That also sounds an awful lot like fascism. 😉 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: So it’s your position that lawyers don’t have a right to argue a case that helps their client if it’s in disagreement with the government? That also sounds an awful lot like fascism. 😉 I can’t tell if you’re being a troll or a moron. In either case, I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Lawyers don’t have a right to help their clients facilitate a crime. Creating and signing fake documents is a crime. Defrauding the US is a crime. I don’t know why this is so hard. But maybe you’re just trying to deflect because you know your position is idiotic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, ChiGoose said: These claims were investigated and audited and found to be false. Trump was told by those who looked into them that they were false. She can present evidence to this fact. The voter roll was also audited multiple times. While it wouldn't be necessary for this case, allowing yet another audit wouldn't change anything. We're getting to the root of a point of contention. Governments also make false statements. And lie and cover up and withhold the truth. And issue propaganda and misonformation when it suits their needs. Given the politicized nature of the environment an independent third party review would restore faith in the process. Assuming they've got nothing to hide. And if such an audit performed under the supervision of the court proves the State of Georgia's contentions so be it. I think our differences can be summed up that you trust the government and I do not. Edited August 29, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSOL Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: I can’t tell if you’re being a troll or a moron. In either case, I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Lawyers don’t have a right to help their clients facilitate a crime. Creating and signing fake documents is a crime. Defrauding the US is a crime. I don’t know why this is so hard. But maybe you’re just trying to deflect because you know your position is idiotic. I agree with Deek, it's bad enough precedent to indict a former president but I feel that it's totally over the top to go after the lawyers as well. Maybe in this case, that pleases the liberal left, you're happy they are going after Trump and his lawyers, but what if it was you or your friends or colleagues? Do we really want the American judicial system poised to indict lawyers too? That seems to be pushing the boundaries to authoritarianism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 36 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: We're getting to the root of a point of contention. Governments also make false statements. And lie and cover up and withhold the truth. And issue propaganda and misonformation when it suits their needs. Given the politicized nature of the environment an independent third party review would restore faith in the process. Assuming they've got nothing to hide. And if such an audit performed under the supervision of the court proves the State of Georgia's contentions so be it. I think our differences can be summed up that you trust the government and I do not. It's not that I "trust the government." It's that I looked at the facts of the case and the law. Trump's campaign told him the election claims were false. His DoJ told them they were false. We have testimony of Trump admitting he lost. Trump hired investigators who found that the claims were false. Many of the states in question, like Georgia, had audits that confirmed the original outcome. Trump either knew or should have known, that his claims of fraud were baseless. But Trump just kept going from person to person until he found people like Eastman who knew the claims were false but was willing to commit crimes anyway, and Powell, who is a moron. If 99 people told him he was wrong, he was going to find that 1 person who might agree with him. And then they decided, having exhausted their legal avenues, that they would commit crimes. Al Gore may have thought there was a chance that he won the 2000 election (he probably didn't but there are some studies that show he may have), but when he ran out of legal avenues, he accepted the decision even if he didn't disagree with it. He was never prosecuted because he didn't reject the legal system in favor of enlisting people in a criminal scheme to commit fraud. 3 minutes ago, TSOL said: I agree with Deek, it's bad enough precedent to indict a former president but I feel that it's totally over the top to go after the lawyers as well. Maybe in this case, that pleases the liberal left, you're happy they are going after Trump and his lawyers, but what if it was you or your friends or colleagues? Do we really want the American judicial system poised to indict lawyers too? That seems to be pushing the boundaries to authoritarianism If Dem lawyers decided to commit crimes, they should be prosecuted too. I absolutely want the judicial system to indict people who commit crimes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: I can’t tell if you’re being a troll or a moron. In either case, I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Lawyers don’t have a right to help their clients facilitate a crime. Creating and signing fake documents is a crime. Defrauding the US is a crime. I don’t know why this is so hard. But maybe you’re just trying to deflect because you know your position is idiotic. Lighten up Counselor. You guys REALLY need to get a sense of humor. Your rabid thirst to ‘get Trump’ has sucked out any last remaining bits of your souls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSOL Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: . If Dem lawyers decided to commit crimes, they should be prosecuted too. I absolutely want the judicial system to indict people who commit crimes. You know exactly what I'm saying about setting legal precedent with this case. And I'm going to leave it at that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 11 minutes ago, TSOL said: You know exactly what I'm saying about setting legal precedent with this case. And I'm going to leave it at that I don’t think you understand the facts and merits of the case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSOL Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 (edited) 8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I don’t think you understand the facts and merits of the case. I say the same to you This is a road, we as a democratic and free society, are best left untraveled Edited August 29, 2023 by TSOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I don’t think you understand the facts and merits of the case. The facts are Trump is guilty….yaadaa, yaadaa, yaadaa. 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSOL Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 It's an abomination. It's their airing of our countries dirty laundry for the world to see. It's a petty grievance and it's an embarrassment that my fellow Americans would support such a pathetic display I'm ashamed of you Dems for supporting such a grotesque miscarriage of justice 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 23 minutes ago, TSOL said: I say the same to you This is a road, we as a democratic and free society, are best left untraveled So we should just let former presidents commit serious crimes? Try to overturn elections? Defraud the country? Other democracies prosecute politicians who commit crimes. Do you think politicians should be immune to prosecution for crimes? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSOL Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: So we should just let former presidents commit serious crimes? Try to overturn elections? Defraud the country? Other democracies prosecute politicians who commit crimes. Do you think politicians should be immune to prosecution for crimes? Sh1t happens quit acting like an old lady. The constitution was written so that the American public can do WAY more than just what happened happened J6. F'in bill of rights baby I say that not just to you but to the whole pearl clutching crowd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts