VakAttack

You're criticizing sports fans for being sports fans. They root for their teams and against their opponents.

Welcome to watching wrestling, where home fans call for stalling very quickly.

Great. Today is a new day. What a weird attempt to criticize. "Wow, if they were real fans they would cheer for the guy who just beat their wrestler."

Lol, he took one shot in that match. Not that Drake did a whole lot either.

Not any more than normal. He only got booed because he begged for it.

How so?

It didn't affect the match in any way, but the out of bounds stall call was very inconsistent there. Ramos dove out of bounds. Again, doesn't really affect the outcome.

Factually incorrect? The statement about Dems removing Trump from ballots on a whim is factually incorrect. The situation in Colorado was primarily Republican driven and certainly not a whim. The statement about going through DNC chairs is presumably correct, I don't know. The middle three sentences are mostly opinion, so not factually incorrect, but disagree with two of them, and agree with one (about handpicking Hillary over Bernie).

No, the judge objected to the proposed immunity offered to Hunter. Judge's typically have no authority over what charges a person faces from the prosecutors, but can refuse to accept the terms of an agreement. Some federal courts allow for full on plea agreements, but many of them basically just allow for "recommendations" with the judge having the final call on a sentence. I'm not entirely certain which type of jurisdiction Hunter was in then or is in now; I practice at a state level. Now, in a real world setting, judges can...make their displeasure known, which can have effects in the different offices, but if a prosecutor wants to drop a charge, the judge can not stop them.

He did make that argument when asked. You not liking a question doesn't make it irrational. You can try to drag this into a semantics debate all you want, just keep ignoring what Trump said about "crossing a line." Nothing bad ever happens when we just ignore things.

1. Dake had no redshirt, but Cael did. True, but Dake also had two losses in what would have been his redshirt freshman year, whereas Cael obviously was undefeated. His two losses were to Donnie Vinson (who went 0-2 at NCAAs) and Kevin LeValley (who took 7th). If Dake had been undefeated his last 4 years of college, this would be more a point in your favor. 2. Uhh...neither was Cael, the four time NCAA OW. He bonused his way to the finals as a freshman, bonused his way through the whole tournament as a sophomore including a major in the semis over Eggum, the only guy to hold him to a decision at the NCAAs as a freshman, bonused his way to the finals again as a junior, and finally bonused his way through the whole tournament again as a senior. 3. Not as dominant before the NCAAs or at the NCAAs. Dake had 9 total bonus point wins at the NCAAs. Cael had 18. Again, see above. The redshirt argment might hold more weight with me if Dake had gone undefeated his last three years of college. He didn't. He lost to Donnie Vinson as a sophomore (0-2 at NCAAs that year) and Kevin LeValley (7th place that year).

Yup. Just deeply obtuse. Mind-numbing.

The concern on behalf of the Democratic party from you all is very touching and I'm sure comes from an honest place.

That's not...holy shit, it seems impossible to be this obtuse, but here you are. His lawyers are arguing he would be immune if he did. He endorsed that idea himself above, and has literally previously made statements about shooting people. That's literally the whole point of this thread. This is who he is, and he truly believes he is above the law. He outright says it.

....If he ordered someone murdered, that is a violent crime.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1 https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgwkj4/trump-lawyer-says-assassinating-rivals-might-not-be-a-prosecutable-crime Are you trying to have a semantics debate about the requirement of impeachment prior to prosecution? Or are you trying to say he didn't argue it? As to the judge asking extreme hypothetical questions, that's every judge ever in this situation, including every single Justice on SCOTUS, both left and right. That's part of the job to tease out argument about how the law would be applied under lawyer arguments in the most extreme cases. The lawyer was arguing before that that Trump couldn't be prosecuted for crimes alleged to have committed in office because he hadn't been impeached, so the logical extreme example from that argument is what if he ordered someone murdered. The judges also pointed out the de facto full immunity you're giving any president for anything they do in office because they could just resign prior to any impeachment hearing. The idea that POTUS should be immune from any criminal prosecution would be "chilling on their ability to lead" is bull crap, political leaders all across the world have been subjected to prosecution for decades, and the idea that POTUS should get special treatment is ridiculous. Their should be SOME immunity for things in the actual course of his job, but not for actual crimes committed

In what way is it a misrepresentation.

Not sure what you're referencing here. Something related to his drone strike travesties?

This has been known for awhile. The Ds switched their calendar (likely as political payback for Jim Clyburn being a key endorsement for Biden, but publicly the claim has been that SC is more representative of their diverse coalition). New Hampshire said "eff you" and held their primary anyway, which is in line with the independent streak of New Hampshire that both parties deal with.

There is no legitimate case for Dake, IMO. Cael won four, undefeated, bonus throughout. Cael did everything we would ask to be considered the greatest.

The bold is just false. And you literally went to name-calling in the next sentence!

Disagreeing with somebody is not condescending. However, I freely admit there are some people on here that I have condescended to on this thread (and who have condescended to me). However, it seems like you and Mr. Dimon are only focusing on one side that needs to show respect to the other, and THAT has been my point from the beginning of my entry into this thread. Democrats and Biden are called to task for even the mildest criticism or disrespect, whereas Trump and Republicans are allowed to make among the most despicable accusations one can make with no proof and it's all handwaved away. As to Biden breaking with his party, here's a quick smattering of the oil links and the last one touches on multiple breaks with party. https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/biden-administration-oil-gas-drilling-approvals-outpace-trumps-2023-01-24/ https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/29/politics/biden-offshore-drilling-plan-climate/index.html https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-broke-central-campaign-promise-progressives-not-happy https://thehill.com/homenews/4366339-biden-takes-hits-from-democrats-on-multiple-fronts/

Then you're not paying attention. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/15/politics/donald-trump-biden-retweet/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/donald-trump-jr-biden-smear.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon I'm sorry you feel that way. I feel that, in general, our exchanges have been cordial; however I would love to for you to point out a place where I've been irrational. And Biden IS doing all that. In the real world. Getting things passed that are bipartisan support, despite the efforts of certain aspects of conservative political sphere trying hard to undermine that, and doing things counter to what the more progressive wings of his party want, such as how he's handling the Israel-Palestine conflict or his administrations actions re: drilling for oil.

Good point. So your argument is that Biden should treat the people who call him either a child-eating pedophile or dementia-ridden puppet with the utmost respect? Because he personally draws a distinction between all Republicans and the MAGA movement. Or that Democrats in general should treat with respect the people who call them child-groomers intent on destroying the country? Why is this not a mutual requirement? Because that's what we're talking about here. Not the people who are able to converse respectfully with one another. As mentioned previously, I consider @Husker_Du a personal friend and he and I differ greatly on politics. Lots of my family members are on the conservative end of the spectrum, most of them are able to discuss things respectfully. That kind of conversation happens all over the country every day. If Dimon is talking about every progressive talking to every conservative, he's arguing against a straw man.