|
Post by donkey on May 31, 2024 19:18:34 GMT -5
People, be smarter than name calling. At least go to the published court records and look to see what laws were broken, and the full transcript of the trial. Presidents, news networks, political parties and especially people in comment sections do not decide legal cases - juries made up of every-day citizens do. People are charged with and convicted of falsifying business records every day. It's fraud and it's a crime. If Obama was caught doing this you'd be dancing in the streets. Read real news, not shock jock opinion programs. By the way, I don't think Trump will go to jail. He's an old man and a first time offender. If he was a nobody he might spend six months, but he's a somebody with lots of money and that gets you out of a lot in the U.S. But CEOs, governors and mobsters get thrown in jail all the time. Get real, there's no grand conspiracy. Its not the jury's fault. The corrupt lefty DA who ran on "getting Trump" and radical "Stop Trump" donating judge snowed them by withholding testimony, giving absurd jury instructions, misleading them at every turn. Nobody buys it of course. lol Guaranteed to be overturned on appeal at some level. Theres no case here, no laws broken, and they had to try and cobble together some ridiculous fed campaign law misdemeanor that they had no jurisdiction over to bring back to life the dead misdemeanor bookkeeping fake error that some bookkeeper made. Even if there had been some legit bookkeeping error, you dont take a presidential candidate to trial for it, esp. during an election, for something so trivial. It's beyond bizarre, beyond desperate, and if makes you look either like you are completely ignorant of what's going on here, or completely disingenuous. Either way, you look foolish. lol It was nothing more than a political show trial. Just as after the fake Russia collusion coup attempt, the fake Mara Lago raid, the fake indictments, and now the fake conviction that is doomed to be overturned and was merely done to try and harm Trump before the election, Trumps has raised 55 million dollars in the last 24 hours, and his poll numbers will continue to rise. LoL...you failed yet again...sucks to be you. Face it, Biden sucks, and his policies suck, and Trump is going to win in November. Time to get over it already.
|
|
|
Post by msims on May 31, 2024 19:22:14 GMT -5
It seems that streaming has made artists feel they are more popular than they are.
People who download music for free aren't necessarily going to pay $200-500 per ticket to see a band or artist they love.
Rickky also gives the perception that artists are meant to perform in arenas, there are certain exceptions its not the norm.
Alot of Jackie concerts were around 70% sold but yet the convo around here, is that she cant book tours.
Btw I checked Live Nation, TM (whos in smaller venues except msg which isnt sold out and other dates arent) and BE hasnt yet sold out of all her shows.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on May 31, 2024 20:07:29 GMT -5
msims what are you doing?
|
|
|
Post by The Real Outhouse on May 31, 2024 21:04:25 GMT -5
It's beyond bizarre, beyond desperate, and if makes you look either like you are completely ignorant of what's going on here, or completely disingenuous. Either way, you look foolish. lol Trump is going to win in November. Time to get over it already. There is no one more foolish than someone who would vote for a CONVICTED FELON for president of the US. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The CONVICTED FELON fooled you in 2016 and fooled a lot of people in 2020 (but not enough to win), and now he is trying to fool you again. How can you be so stupid?
|
|
|
Post by msims on Jun 1, 2024 0:09:24 GMT -5
msims what are you doing? Trying to stay cool, its hot on the west coast.
|
|
|
Post by msims on Jun 1, 2024 17:42:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jun 1, 2024 17:45:22 GMT -5
It's beyond bizarre, beyond desperate, and if makes you look either like you are completely ignorant of what's going on here, or completely disingenuous. Either way, you look foolish. lol Trump is going to win in November. Time to get over it already. There is no one more foolish than someone who would vote for a CONVICTED FELON for president of the US. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The CONVICTED FELON fooled you in 2016 and fooled a lot of people in 2020 (but not enough to win), and now he is trying to fool you again. How can you be so stupid? Despite your desperate TDS fantasies, this is purely political persecution and everyone knows it...it's not rocket science. Nobody even knows what the crime is. Outrageous. ROFL This was all manufactured to try and damage Trump ahead of the election, who is beating Demetia Joe in all the polls. Disgusting that any would support fascist tactics like this. Note that CNN wrote this...and they hate Trump: CNN Senior Legal Analyst Describes How The Trump Conviction Was A Political Hit Job
1. "The judge donated money... in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations—to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation."
2. Alvin Bragg boasted on the campaign trail in an overwhelmingly Democrat county, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.”
3. "Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process."
4. "The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever."
5. The DA inflated misdemeanors past the statute of limitations and "electroshocked them back to life" by alleging the falsification of business records was committed 'with intent to commit another crime.'
6. "Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial."
7. "In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else."
8. "The Manhattan DA’s employees reportedly have called this the “Zombie Case” because of various legal infirmities, including its bizarre charging mechanism. But it’s better characterized as the Frankenstein Case, cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator."
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jun 1, 2024 17:51:29 GMT -5
Elon Musk:
"Indeed, great damage was done today to the public’s faith in the American legal system.
If a former President can be criminally convicted over such a trivial matter – motivated by politics, rather than justice – then anyone is at risk of a similar fate."
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jun 1, 2024 18:05:58 GMT -5
Liberals can’t understand that the same fate could happen to them , they see things in black and white, like nothing else could be a possibility!
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jun 1, 2024 19:11:46 GMT -5
„No, it is not at all possible to derive from the Bible how one should position oneself as a Christian today with regard to the issue of homosexuality. First, because the Bible says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. And secondly, because the sexual acts described in it must always be viewed in their respective cultural and socio-historical context. The idea of a homosexual partnership did not yet exist at that time. People have only been talking about this since the beginning of the 19th century.“ „Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27 are often used to give a negative assessment of homosexuality. Müllner: You cannot use these passages against homosexuality as it is understood today, because it is not about a long-term love relationship between people of the same sex. You have to know this before using such quotes to argue. In Leviticus, if a man lies with a man as with a woman, it is rejected. This describes anal sex between men. But this is not about a homosexual relationship. It's about a sexual act that is condemned because it is not seen as conducive to community. This becomes clear from the context, where, among other things, sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, i.e. not fertile at the time, is rejected. Genesis 19 is often referenced in narrative literature. Here, guests who come to the city of Sodom, hence the term sodomy, are supposed to be humiliated through sexual intercourse. Again, it's not about homosexual relationships. Instead, men should be raped by a group of other men. So it's about xenophobic violence. This Bible passage makes the connection between sexuality and power clear. We have to deal with this connection, especially with regard to the abuse scandal.“ “Question: So it's more about power than same-sex love? Müllner: Yes, in ancient times a sexual act between men was defined by a power relationship. It's not about a partnership of equals, but about saying who is powerful and rich and who dominates the other sexually like a slave. We are talking here about the grown man and the boy, about the superior and the inferior. Sexuality can also become a weapon of war, something we still know today. In his letter to the Romans, Paul spoke out against this ancient practice of power-based sexuality between men. Therefore, he condemns male-male sexual intercourse as “against nature.” What one can learn from studying biblical texts is that it is not about assessing individual sexual acts, but rather that sexuality is always lived in relationships and in the context of communities and therefore has social functions.“ Hmm. Leviticus 18:22 was between 21 (forbidding child sacrifice) and 23 (forbidding bestiality). I suppose one could claim both of those are abuse of power too (which is a PART of many forbidden acts, and why conservatives can be better people than authoritarian (compulsory) collectivists, not to say you can't volunteer to participate in doing good deeds). But I think that's looking for a problem way beyond what it actually says. Most of Leviticus 18 was listing forbidden deviant acts. There are even practical reasons to forbid them. A number of them would be inbreeding (always unhealthy but more so in a relatively small group where some more distant degree happened anyway), and some of the others would create relationship situations that were almost always unfair. Anal sex is more likely to result in both disease and injury than vaginal sex, at a minimum incontinence in the one whose sphincter might be damaged. If one even pretends to believe in a Creator, the sewer and the playground/reproductive orifice have separate functions by design that were NOT MEANT TO BE CONFUSED. As to why they're next to each other, simple: gravity assist getting either poop or baby out. Both of those, form follows function, esp. given a long digestive tract with separate entrance (mouth) and exit (anus). As for priestly celibacy, I agree that it was never a Biblical requirement; indeed, in the Old Testament days, that would have been a very peculiar idea indeed. But in addition to being a wealth grab by the organized (and like any human organization, not divinely protected from corruption; there are both fakes out there and those who fall deep into temptation, although I don't think it's for me to say which is which, just that the outcome is wrong) Catholic Church, a theoretically celibate priesthood also had the practical point of avoiding nepotism. Some abbots and bishops and higher had a (unseemly, but that's another argument) degree of temporal power and wealth associated with them, and without that ban, there would be a tendency for that position, power, and wealth to be inherited, to the further detriment of the service that any hierarch was supposed to be performing. (Cologne kicked their archbishop/Prince Elector out, at least in the temporal capacity; good for them! the later palace of that Prince Elector is now the main building of the university in Bonn, some distance away from Cologne; been there) Notwithstanding the corruption that made power and wealth all too attractive, the abuses were such that something had to be done. With a small population surrounded by the less than friendly, not having children was otherwise with rare exception (like celibate hermits) antisocial, or the next thing to it. With present populations (of nominal Christians, although not Jews whose numbers are still small), over-reproducing is arguably an optional demographic battle rather than a matter of survival. Alternative identity or orientation is a mental issue. Expecting reality to conform to one's mind is problematic. Chastity is not fatal, and the excuse of born that way doesn't hold. There are people born with assorted physical and mental deformities. As long as they don't assert that deformity entitles conduct and is mainstream, they deserve compassion. But nobody ever died from chastity, and suicide is an excuse, not a reason for alternative conduct. And one controls one's mind with will rather than letting it run amok. Feelings should have an opinion, but rarely if ever have a vote, compared to dispassionate consideration. The ones I'd cut the most slack are those very few born physically peculiar. I suppose that in at least some cases they should have choices, but arguably only with someone else of similar/compatible disadvantage, and deferred until they're old enough to understand. Nothing to do with tolerance, but with likelihood of stable outcomes. Regular folks are supposed to just make it work and be responsible (even if probably less than 50% actually do). Adding challenges to that does not favor good outcomes. Those with compatible peculiarities have a disadvantage, but a partly offsetting advantage of somewhat understanding what the other copes with, so they're probably the best match, if one isn't willing so say that all the peculiar should just do without physically intimate relationships. Casual boinking is a public health hazard on the practical side, devalues the participants, and sets a bad example within society. So even at the fringes, stable is better than casual.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jun 1, 2024 19:13:19 GMT -5
Anyone who votes for a CONVICTED FELON is too stupid (and does not deserve) to live in a democracy. Anyone who believes that a conviction under DA and judge that were both big Democrat donors, and a DA who ran on the platform of indicting Trump, was anything remotely resembling a fair trial, is too ignorant to live in a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jun 1, 2024 19:16:12 GMT -5
Liberals can’t understand that the same fate could happen to them , they see things in black and white, like nothing else could be a possibility! They also don't understand that unless they obtain permanent power, payback will be a b_tch. And that's regardless of anything Trump might do. What comes around, goes around.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jun 1, 2024 19:30:58 GMT -5
DA and judge that were both big Democrat donors How much did DA and judge donate to Democrats?
|
|
|
Post by msims on Jun 1, 2024 19:32:23 GMT -5
I am considering donating to President Trump's Campaign!
|
|
|
Post by Bill E. Eylash on Jun 1, 2024 19:35:40 GMT -5
|
|