Election

[swissvale72]

I see why YOU see the injustice in it; I believe you referred to January 6 as a "charade," (maybe it wasn't you), meaning that the all the fuss about it was overblown. In that i think its abhorrent when our law enforcement officers are put at risk, i have zero problem with the proverbial book, maximum under the law, being thrown at the guy who attacked Brian Sticknick. In other words, too fuckin' bad for this guy, but I don't feel bad for him.

Swiss, I have deep issues with anyone, no matter the crime or circumstances, being sentenced based on something they weren't convicted of. Something that the jury didn't deliberate on, and something that the prosecutor didn't have the evidence to charge them with.

It has happened in other cases (not just J6). The Silk Road trial being another infamous example.

You are endorsing punishing people for things they were never tried and convicted of.

I know I am…lots of things I would change if i ruled the world. For instance, I would make it lots easier to execute someone, fuck all those appeals. For instance, the Boston bomber should have been put to death years ago

[CKSteeler]

I see why YOU see the injustice in it; I believe you referred to January 6 as a "charade," (maybe it wasn't you), meaning that the all the fuss about it was overblown. In that i think its abhorrent when our law enforcement officers are put at risk, i have zero problem with the proverbial book, maximum under the law, being thrown at the guy who attacked Brian Sticknick. In other words, too fuckin' bad for this guy, but I don't feel bad for him.

Swiss, I have deep issues with anyone, no matter the crime or circumstances, being sentenced based on something they weren't convicted of. Something that the jury didn't deliberate on, and something that the prosecutor didn't have the evidence to charge them with.

It has happened in other cases (not just J6). The Silk Road trial being another infamous example.

You are endorsing punishing people for things they were never tried and convicted of.

I know I am…lots of things I would change if i ruled the world. For instance, I would make it lots easier to execute someone, fuck all those appeals. For instance, the Boston bomber should have been put to death years ago

Swiss, you just told us there would be no place for appeals because there would be no trials. Your statement is either so poorly thought out that you don't actually realize it's implications, or you are an outright fascist whether you realize that or not.

[swissvale72]

Swiss, I have deep issues with anyone, no matter the crime or circumstances, being sentenced based on something they weren't convicted of. Something that the jury didn't deliberate on, and something that the prosecutor didn't have the evidence to charge them with.

It has happened in other cases (not just J6). The Silk Road trial being another infamous example.

You are endorsing punishing people for things they were never tried and convicted of.

I know I am…lots of things I would change if i ruled the world. For instance, I would make it lots easier to execute someone, fuck all those appeals. For instance, the Boston bomber should have been put to death years ago

Swiss, you just told us there would be no place for appeals because there would be no trials. Your statement is either so poorly thought out that you don't actually realize it's implications, or you are an outright fascist whether you realize that or not.

I didn’t say there wouldn’t be trials

[CKSteeler]

I know I am…lots of things I would change if i ruled the world. For instance, I would make it lots easier to execute someone, fuck all those appeals. For instance, the Boston bomber should have been put to death years ago

Swiss, you just told us there would be no place for appeals because there would be no trials. Your statement is either so poorly thought out that you don't actually realize it's implications, or you are an outright fascist whether you realize that or not.

I didn’t say there wouldn’t be trials

Swiss, what is the point of a trial if you can then punish someone for things you never tried them for?

There was never a trial over Sicknick's death. Yet, the sentencing punished the accused for his death all the same.

Like I said, you didn't actually think through the implications of what you were saying. You just said it because you like the outcome. People, not principles.

[swissvale72]

I see why YOU see the injustice in it; I believe you referred to January 6 as a "charade," (maybe it wasn't you), meaning that the all the fuss about it was overblown. In that i think its abhorrent when our law enforcement officers are put at risk, i have zero problem with the proverbial book, maximum under the law, being thrown at the guy who attacked Brian Sticknick. In other words, too fuckin' bad for this guy, but I don't feel bad for him.

Swiss, I have deep issues with anyone, no matter the crime or circumstances, being sentenced based on something they weren't convicted of. Something that the jury didn't deliberate on, and something that the prosecutor didn't have the evidence to charge them with.

It has happened in other cases (not just J6). The Silk Road trial being another infamous example.

You are endorsing punishing people for things they were never tried and convicted of.

I know I am…lots of things I would change if i ruled the world. For instance, I would make it lots easier to execute someone, fuck all those appeals. For instance, the Boston bomber should have been put to death years ago

Was the sentence allowable for the crime on which he was tried and convicted?

[CKSteeler]

Was the sentence allowable for the crime on which he was tried and convicted?

Should victim impact statements be allowed to accuse the men of homicide? The judge has no choice but to stay in the sentencing guidelines.

Should the prosecutor be allowed to argue that the death made the actions worse without ever proving a connection between the two events?

Would they have gotten the same sentence had the police officer not died after from natural causes?

It's pretty basic, Swiss. If you were charged with a crime, and then the prosecutor tried to punish you more severely for something they couldn't prove, something tells me you'd be singing a different tune.

[swissvale72]

Was the sentence allowable for the crime on which he was tried and convicted?

Should victim impact statements be allowed to accuse the men of homicide? The judge has no choice but to stay in the sentencing guidelines.

Should the prosecutor be allowed to argue that the death made the actions worse without ever proving a connection between the two events?

Would they have gotten the same sentence had the police officer not died after from natural causes?

It's pretty basic, Swiss. If you were charged with a crime, and then the prosecutor tried to punish you more severely for something they couldn't prove, something tells me you'd be singing a different tune.

He pleaded guilty to the crimes for which he was charged, right, and sentenced accordingly. Problem with that is…??

[955876]

Haven’t followed it that closely, told you that

That is apparent by your emotionally driven answers and inability to address or answer substantive questions.

[955876]

You err in referring to me as a liberal; you err in lots of things about me, like this made up teenage girl bullshit. I said from the outset that I’m a lifelong dem; one should not confuse that with liberal

Does it really matter how you label yourself? The Dem party is now the servant of the progressive left. It’s certainly not the Dem party of years past and the one you think you still belong to.

Call yourself what you wish.

And ummm, you were outed back then for creepin on Spiker.

Soooo it’s really not bullshit.

And you brought this discourse on yourself. Up to you if it continues or not.

[swissvale72]

Sounds like you’re the one, admittedly “creepin” on 20 year olds. Didn’t know that messages on this esteemed website with a then 30 year old constituted “creepin.”

[955876]

Reading comphehanion again.

I said tossing their panties at me. What part was I creepin??

And we all remember the story. Your infatuation with the teenage volleyball player that turned out to be a man.

You were catfished and it was funny. Can’t back peddle now.

And it is time for you to just stop as your are sinking into the depths of desperation and despair in your attempts to slander me.

Call me a condescending prick all you want. I don’t care.

You can bring up 20 year olds too. I don’t care. I’m 52. If some 28 year old hottie wants to flirt with me or send me pics of herself I’ll take the lil ego boost. Soooo not really an insult. But keep trying.

Bringing up my wife who came close to dying isn’t an insult either. Maybe you’ll get lucky and her cancer will come back. Then you can use that too.

But an insult at me it is not. What it is (and it’s painfully obvious) is a desperate (and disgusting) attempt to get under my skin.

A very pathetic attempt as well. Is that really who you are as a person?? Are you so desperate to win an internet fight (at your age) you’d stoop so low as to bring up cancer in someone’s family?

That the kind of man you are??

Rhetorical question as you’ve shown that is exactly the kind of man you are.

Sad actually.

Maybe it’s time for you to pump the brakes here Dave.

[Pabst]

The CARES Act passed with a 96 yays and zero nays in the Senate. Trump couldn't have stopped the CARES Act even if he wanted to.

Trump never tried, nor wanted, to stop the expansion of mail in ballots. Thanks for confirming.

And again, please keep trying to re-litigate shit that was laughed out of court 3 years ago. Should go over well with voters.

[swissvale72]

Reading comphehanion again.

I said tossing their panties at me. What part was I creepin??

And we all remember the story. Your infatuation with the teenage volleyball player that turned out to be a man.

You were catfished and it was funny. Can’t back peddle now.

And it is time for you to just stop as your are sinking into the depths of desperation and despair in your attempts to slander me.

Call me a condescending prick all you want. I don’t care.

You can bring up 20 year olds too. I don’t care. I’m 52. If some 28 year old hottie wants to flirt with me or send me pics of herself I’ll take the lil ego boost. Soooo not really an insult. But keep trying.

Bringing up my wife who came close to dying isn’t an insult either. Maybe you’ll get lucky and her cancer will come back. Then you can use that too.

But an insult at me it is not. What it is (and it’s painfully obvious) is a desperate (and disgusting) attempt to get under my skin.

A very pathetic attempt as well. Is that really who you are as a person?? Are you so desperate to win an internet fight (at your age) you’d stoop so low as to bring up cancer in someone’s family?

That the kind of man you are??

Rhetorical question as you’ve shown that is exactly the kind of man you are.

Sad actually.

Maybe it’s time for you to pump the brakes here Dave.

Get your facts straight if you’re going to bring up shit like that.
Wasn’t a man
Wasn’t catfished
Wasn’t CLOSE to being a teenager

The sad part is being a bragging, condescending prick like you.

[955876]

Uh huh.

Keep deflecting. You tried to use a dying woman to get a jab in over a political argument.

That’s who you are as a man and human.

Can I be a condescending prick?? Absolutely. Like my namesake once said, I wasn’t hired for my disposition.

But as a man and a human, I’d NEVER stoop so low as to bring up your cancer riddled wife or son.

That displays a serious lack of moral fiber on your part.

I don’t really give a shit if Spiker was a man, woman, or a hermaphidite. I do t care if you are into transsexuals.

It’s a jab and we are trading jabs.

Serious question, say your son has cancer and I shifted gears from busting your balls over Spiker to bringing your dying kid into the mix what would you call me then???

Probably something more sever than condescending prick.

And you’d be right.

But that isn’t me. I can certainly be an asshoke when engaged in a debate and the mud slinging begins.

But I’m not a repugnant human that would go to those levels to win an internet fight.

That’s you and you can’t run from it now. It’s on tape.

[swissvale72]

I really dont give a fuck what descriptors you, and your little friends...all two of them....on this site, say about me.

You keep making shit up; I just set the record straight.

That's all.

[955876]

Still as dense as triple canopy jungle.

You do care. You care so much you had to shift gears by trying to insult me over my wife almost dying from cancer.

That disgusting display on your part shows how deeply you care.

And how shallow you are as a human.

You call me a condescending prick and I bust your balls about Spiker. Par for the course.

I’d never stoop as low as you did though.

And as CK said, how is that even an insult?? It’s not.

Just reveals that you are in fact a scum bag.

You done yet??

Wanna see Kingsbarns??? Pretty course along the Scottish coast. Enjoy the beauty for a while and get that blood pressure down.

[swissvale72]

Still as dense as triple canopy jungle.

You do care. You care so much you had to shift gears by trying to insult me over my wife almost dying from cancer.

That disgusting display on your part shows how deeply you care.

And how shallow you are as a human.

You call me a condescending prick and I bust your balls about Spiker. Par for the course.

I’d never stoop as low as you did though.

And as CK said, how is that even an insult?? It’s not.

Just reveals that you are in fact a scum bag.

You done yet??

Wanna see Kingsbarns??? Pretty course along the Scottish coast. Enjoy the beauty for a while and get that blood pressure down.

Sticks & Stones, '95. Done.

[955876]

Good

[Deebo]

YOU started talking about teenage girls...along with references to the View, menstruation, etc.

And yes, I have zero problem with the idiots who pepper sprayed the capitol police officer, who died the next day, being sentenced in a way that holds them accountable for his death. Even the medical examiner made statements suggesting it was a contributing factor. Answer your question?

Swiss, simple follow-up. Why weren't they charged with his death? or anything related to his death?

Here's why...IMO. Probably because the prosecturer felt as though he couldn't meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." There was though, IMO, sufficient belief that the attack on Brian Sticknick (sp?) contributed to his death. That's how I interprest the ME's statement.

Related question: do you believe Ben was guilty of what he was ACCUSED of in GA and Nevada?

[swissvale72]

Swiss, simple follow-up. Why weren't they charged with his death? or anything related to his death?

Here's why...IMO. Probably because the prosecturer felt as though he couldn't meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." There was though, IMO, sufficient belief that the attack on Brian Sticknick (sp?) contributed to his death. That's how I interprest the ME's statement.

Related question: do you believe Ben was guilty of what he was ACCUSED of in GA and Nevada?

I’m less familiar with the Nevada accusations but don’t believe he was guilty in Georgia and argued this on a Boston talk show until I was cut off due to being too detailed. My argument was that it was physically impossible for him to have done what he was accused of doing

[955876]

shit that was laughed out of court

To be fair, a statement such as this doesn’t hold nearly as much water as it would have years ago.

Our courts, Justice Dept., judges, DAs etc etc etc have been weaponized for political purposes.

We’ve seen courts throw out, refuse to prosecute, give light sentences to those given political preference while the book is thrown at others.

Citing the “courts” anymore doesn’t make it valid or legit like it would have in years past where there was at least some semblance of “equal protection under the law”…

Just saying…

[Pabst]

shit that was laughed out of court

To be fair, a statement such as this doesn’t hold nearly as much water as it would have years ago.

Our courts, Justice Dept., judges, DAs etc etc etc have been weaponized for political purposes.

We’ve seen courts throw out, refuse to prosecute, give light sentences to those given political preference while the book is thrown at others.

Citing the “courts” anymore doesn’t make it valid or legit like it would have in years past where there was at least some semblance of “equal protection under the law”…

Just saying…

Courts refusing to prosecute BLM protesters is not proof that the election was stolen from Trump.

I realize I'm yelling into the void when i say this, but you cannot try a case based on vague, unproven assertions. You need actual, tangible evidence and 3 years later Trump's legal team has produced jack shit.

Even worse, several state GOP orgs as well as members of Trumps own team have been caught engaging in illegal acts. Now, add to that the fact that Trump's legal team is a 3 ring circus and here we are.

Lastly, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. That's a 6-3 conservative majority.

[955876]

Courts refusing to prosecute BLM protesters is not proof that the election was stolen from Trump.

I’m not just referring to that nor the election.

Our courts, judges, DAs etc have been weaponized and that’s a pretty indisputable fact.

Look at the sham court case going on in Florida.

Trump overstated the value of his properties when obtaining a loan. Ummmm so what. Real estate prices aren’t fixed. Tell me how much your home is worth to an exact amount today.

Doesn’t happen.

What does happen is the financial institution doing the lending sends their own appraiser and from there will value that property according to their own appraisal. They don’t go by the borrowers word alone.

If they do or did, that’s on their own risk management officers and not the borrower.

From there you have bank CEOs stating (in court) no harm was done and they were paid back in full. Said they would happily lend to him again.

There is no victim here.

And yet the DA is trying to prosecute him on fraud charges and the “courts” are seeing the case.

My point is valid and accurate that our justice system has been compromised. Believe it or not.

And the election was a much bigger issue. No case because you have no proof.

Ok, we can’t get proof unless a full forensic accounting is done. Something they wouldn’t do. And couldn’t do given envelopes with signatures were destroyed and the amount of time it would have taken. Meanwhile country in limbo.

Very convenient and makes it nearly impossible to prove without an extensive forensic investigation.

Just some of the problems with mass mail in voting.

[Deebo]

Here's why...IMO. Probably because the prosecturer felt as though he couldn't meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." There was though, IMO, sufficient belief that the attack on Brian Sticknick (sp?) contributed to his death. That's how I interprest the ME's statement.

Related question: do you believe Ben was guilty of what he was ACCUSED of in GA and Nevada?

I’m less familiar with the Nevada accusations but don’t believe he was guilty in Georgia and argued this on a Boston talk show until I was cut off due to being too detailed. My argument was that it was physically impossible for him to have done what he was accused of doing

Can you elaborate on "physically impossible"?

[Dan Smith--BYU]

Judge in the NY loan fraud claimed Mar a Lago was worth 18 m because homes around it were that much. Problem is that it is on 20x as much land and is a much larger home, most value at over 300 m. The only estimation fraud was by the court.

Meanwhile the Dems drag Al Green out of the hospital in a gown IV and a bare ass to vote against impeachment. They are committed while the GOP leadership is stuck on aw shucks.

[Pabst]

Trump overstated the value of his properties when obtaining a loan. Ummmm so what.

The "so what" is that's fraud.

And we're not talking about fluctuating values here....He had a buddy appraise it at $1 Billion when the city of Palm Beach estimated it's value at $18-28 million


I've said it before and I'll say it again: Trump isn't asking for the law to be applied equally, he's asking for the same exemptions he complains that others receive. That's why I have no interest in defending him and his bullshit, sorry.

[Pabst]

Also, for anyone paying attention today,the State of Colorado had an absolutely terrible day at the Supreme Court and the CO Ballot case is predicted to fall flat on it's ass (as it should be).

[955876]

Trump overstated the value of his properties when obtaining a loan. Ummmm so what.

The "so what" is that's fraud.

And we're not talking about fluctuating values here....He had a buddy appraise it at $1 Billion when the city of Palm Beach estimated it's value at $18-28 million


I've said it before and I'll say it again: Trump isn't asking for the law to be applied equally, he's asking for the same exemptions he complains that others receive. That's why I have no interest in defending him and his bullshit, sorry.

How many real estate transactions have you done in your life?

How many times did the lender take your word or your appraiser’s word as to the value?

Lenders use their own appraisal and then tell you the value they are willing to assign to that collateral.

They do not take your word. The value you put down is to get the loan application going. That is all.

The lender will do their own appraisal and then come back with their own terms.

The CEOs of these banks are not crying fraud. They said the exact opposite and that no harm was done and they were paid back in full.

Where is the crime again?

[955876]

That's why I have no interest in defending him and his bullshit, sorry.

I’m not defending him. I’m calling out how compromised our legal and justice system has become.

[CKSteeler]

Trump overstated the value of his properties when obtaining a loan. Ummmm so what.

The "so what" is that's fraud.

And we're not talking about fluctuating values here....He had a buddy appraise it at $1 Billion when the city of Palm Beach estimated it's value at $18-28 million


I've said it before and I'll say it again: Trump isn't asking for the law to be applied equally, he's asking for the same exemptions he complains that others receive. That's why I have no interest in defending him and his bullshit, sorry.

Tell me again when the state has ever gotten into the middle of a loan where there was no dispute between either party and both sides benefited from it. I'll sit here and wait because it hasn't happened. The fraud case against Trump was novel and by novel I mean a bullshit abuse of power. The banks had no issues with the loans and employ very skilled people in their own rights to go through every word of those documents. The banks never took issue, but years after both sides profited from the arrangement the state came into to cry fraud.

There's no accurate way to judge the value of the properties in question unless they actually go on the market because they are unique. There's nothing comparable.