mspart

Why? mspart

I'd say it is more sane than voting for a alzheimers guy who as Hur said has a not too good memory. I guess I think it is better to vote for a leader than the people who tell the guy what to do when how to say it. Again, I can understand you not wanting to vote Green etc, but to vote for a guy who cannot lead because he is impaired does not sound like a good choice to make. That really is voting for micky mouse in my opinion. But I don't want to continue this. People vote for who they are going to vote for. As long as voting is still a thing, a vote is good. mspart

I can understand you don't want to vote for Trump. But why not vote for someone other than Biden? Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Unified (Manchin), etc. You are saying you'll vote for someone who cannot lead and therefore has to have others tell him what to do and what to say and what to sign? In other words, you are voting to be led by un-elected appointees rather than by the person you voted for. And that is a sane position? mspart

History informs us of the direction we are going. Yes I bring up Hillary because she was caught red handed and nothing happened to her. Biden was caught red handed with classified info he had no right to. He got a pass. Trump was caught red handed and gets the book thrown at him. I'll tell you why. Comey said Hillary did it but that no reasonable person would prosecute, even after destroying subpoenaed evidence. Hur said Biden did it and should be liable but was so amiable, kind hearted and so forgetful that no jury would find him guilty. Is that the level of judicial reasoning you are comfortable with? Trump is generally hated by the system so he gets no such consideration. It's because of who he is, and not what he did. The others got off because of who they are and not because of what they did. History informs us of what is happening in the present. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. Let history go? That is the tactic of someone who doesn't have a concrete position from which to argue effectively. Rather than put out reasoned rhetoric, the attack is personal. The last gasp of a lost cause. mspart

I'll type it again very slowly so you can understand. I am not fighting for Trump, I do not want him to run for President. Less Trump the better. What I am upset about, and I made clear in my post, is the bastardization of the judicial branch to be a clearing house for corruption. I find this very corrupt. A DA that ran on getting Trump no matter what. Can't find a criminal code worthy so goes the civil route. A Judge who clearly had it out for Trump and this was apparent from the beginning. A DA that will not prosecute felons but will prosecute Trump. Another DA that filed RICO against Trump and hired her lover for large sums of money that she participated in and expected to - corruption. A DOJ prosecution for classified papers that only applies to Trump, not Biden or Hillary. They get a pass because they are of the right persuasion and not Trump. I hope you are seeing a pattern here. Justice is supposed to be blind but seems to favor those that are favored and not for those that are not. This is also seen in every city where police arrest and the DA does not prosecute for some woke reason or judges do not hear the cases because the perp is the wrong race, gender, or is a homeless drug addict. There is a terrible issue of the justice system focusing on the perp and not the victim. It is not that I am concerned for Trump, I am concerned about our nation as a whole. We cannot survive long with a justice system that picks winners and losers based on who they are or who they are not, and not by what they have done and apply the law to that. Did I type that out slow enough for you? mspart

What Trump EOs was Biden blocked from eliminating? mspart

This is not a refutation that the government makes massive money on a gallon of gas. Federal Government makes 25 billion on gas sales alone in 2023. This does not count diesel. Shell made 28 billion for 2023. So who is the evil here. The oil producer or the federal government. They roughly make the same. mspart

And he tried on others and courts blocked the action. Also public info. mspart

So how do they determine if a person is an illegal immigrant. Heck I could cop an accent and get my 10k. and then do it again and get another 10k since there is no fraud control. Heck I could just keep on doing it and get 100k. Then the money runs out and the gravy train stops. This is just plain foolhardy. Legitimate question: Why shouldn't I get the 10k (speaking as the average Joe in NYC)? I work, I pay taxes and I am paying for these people. I want my tax money back. Give me some. Why should they get free room, board, and 10k? mspart

The fact that government putting on their do gooder shoes and making a service go immediately too expensive for most people to pay for and lessening the take home pay of the driver. All lose. And this was the case. The month before the new law took effect, the drivers take home pay was roughly twice what it was the next month when the law went into effect. And that because the consumer of the service found it too expensive. https://komonews.com/news/local/seattles-new-gig-worker-wage-law-sparks-concerns-amid-dwindling-business-profits-food-delivery-drivers-customers-app-based-fees-uber-door-dash-consumers-lose-money "As required by Seattle law, Dashers now earn at least $26.40, before tips and additional pay for mileage, on any order that originates or concludes in the City of Seattle. As a result of these increased costs, a $4.99 regulatory response fee has been implemented on orders that start or finish in the city," the spokesperson wrote. The company, which has been outspoken against the ordinance, goes on to say that since the law was enacted, Seattle customers have placed 30,000 fewer orders on DoorDash Marketplace, that Seattle businesses missed out on more than $1 million in revenue, and Dashers are getting far fewer trips. mspart

WR, it is a coincidence that all this has happened to one man. His current situation will be appealed. Period. His issue in GA is a joke of a RICO prosecution. Most likely brought on to enrich herself and her paramour with 600k that they vacationed on and the like, knowing this would take some time to get moving. He made out like a bandit at the least. She was sharing in those spoils. Corruption right there, and they should be off the case. In NY, what is normally a misdemeanor is being tried as a felony in a another one of a kind case. And federally, the classified documents case is a sham as we now know. Hillary got no prosecution with hard evidence against her. Biden just got a waiver because he is too old and feeble. But Trump, we got to get him. And then the federal election interference case. He hasn't lost these cases yet. But you can bet they will be appealed if he does. The American people generally are seeing through all this as a campaign to get rid of a political rival. It is seen as corruption and hopefully that message is sent to those in power. mspar

https://vpc.org/more-than-2200-non-self-defense-deaths-involving-concealed-carry-killers-since-2007-latest-violence-policy-center-research-shows/ More Than 2,200 Non-Self Defense Deaths Involving Concealed Carry Killers Since 2007, Latest Violence Policy Center Research Shows For Release: Thursday, April 21, 2022 Overall, Concealed Carry Killers documents 1,981 fatal, non-self defense incidents since May 2007 in 40 states and the District of Columbia, resulting in the deaths of 2,240 people. Thirty-seven of the incidents were fatal mass shootings as defined by federal law (three or more victims killed), resulting in the deaths of 183 victims. At least 24 law enforcement officers have died at the hands of concealed carry killers since May 2007. This is a website that is a proponent of no concealed carry. They cite over 2000 deaths since May 2007. Of those, over 1200 are suicide, so that is not really a consideration. They could have done that without a permit so now there are much less. Of the rest, about 500 have been convicted, and as you can see the numbers go way down from there. So 800 homicides in 15 years, that's a rate of 53.3 homicides a year by people with concealed permits. Putting this into perspective, Chicago had over 700 gun deaths per year since 2020. 2 a day. Think of that. Per https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ , In 2021, 21000 murders with guns were perpetrated. Perhaps 53 of those by people with concealed permits. It would seem that there is plenty of reason to go after everyone else but concealed carry permit holders. 53 to 20947 which is a ratio of 1 to 395. How many of the murders in 2021 were with illegal guns? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States A 2000 study showed a strong association between the availability of illegal guns and violent crime rates, but not between legal gun availability and violent crime rates.[212] And there you have it. Legal guns are not associated with violent crime rates whereas illegal guns or illegally held guns are. mspart

The DA, the judge, and the governor were happy too until...... Oh no, we just screwed ourselves. Quick Kathy, go out and tell everyone they are not Trump so they won't be treated this way. Quick, Go!!! The law of unintended consequences is a thing to behold. 1. Pass law giving gig workers minimum wage. Gig workers make half as much as they did. 2. Pass law decriminalizing drug use. Drug use runs rampant and overdose deaths ensue. General lawlessness prevails in an effort to the next hit. 3. Stop prosecuting shoplifting. Oh my, shoplifting rates go through the roof and Walmart leaves Portland en toto due to theft. Walgreens closes down in poor neighborhoods because they can't take the losses. And these companies are racist because of this. How about stop stealing!! 4. Reducing charges for use of a gun in a felony. Oh, why oh why are we seeing more armed crime in our city? 5. No border enforcement. Oh my, our wonderful sanctuary cities and states are overrun and we can't handle anymore. They are taking our tax base and we can't provide for our own people. Ohhhhhhh. 6. Reduce funding for police. Oh wow. How is it that crime has gone up so tremendously? Oh wait, we just won't report it anymore and therefore crime rates have gone down. Statistically this may work. Realistically it is obvious it does not work. 7. Pass judgement on a political enemy of gargantuan and unprecedented proportions. Oh my get the governor out there to say not to worry, no one else will be so pursued. It was only because he was an enemy of the current regime. You are not such an enemy (until you are determined to be so). Wow, why is no one investing in our state anymore? The people bring this upon themselves and it only takes a correct vote to change this. But as seen in Seattle, it takes years for people to realize they have screwed themselves finally, and do something about it. So now after 10 years we supposedly have a sane City Council. But I haven't seen or heard of much changing yet. mspart

Here in WA, gas tax is 49.4 cents/gallon, fed tax is 18.4 cents/gallon, and the CO2 tax is 46 cents/gallon. That's total of 113.8 cents/gallon. WA gets 95.4 cents/gallon. Greedy government. they make way more than the gas companies. mspart

Nice try. Predetermined by the way they treated Trump and his team. Please name those that were harmed. Probably some were? That doesn't hold up in court. Name names. Have dates and data. Probably doesn't cut it except in this monkey trial. It was a civil trial because the DA couldn't make it a criminal trial because she couldn't prove anything. Civil just is 51-49 and you win. Much easier. Again nice try. I have no evidence of predetermined outcome other than what I saw, read, and heard. You have no evidence there was harm, even though everyone associated is whole, but you suppose it. Of course it is my opinion, just like yours is yours. But a $355 Million judgement plus interest is excessive and shows the bias of the judge. Period. I think that is pretty cut and dried. You may not. But there is no precedent for this kind of ruling. mspart

What you say is very interesting. You have a government that has control because they have the arms and the civilians don't and they can't make a change. Sounds familiar. But they can be ratted out. mspart

There are way to do it UB. You just have to exercise that old brain of yours and you could figure it out and pass it along to them. Just off the top of my head, give the IDF directions of where each is. Pretty soon, the well trained terror group is no more. mspart

Or better yet, kill them and bring their bodies out for inspection. Somehow I think many know where they are and could do this. mspart

It sounds like the good people of Gaza should round up the Hamas folks and turn them over. That would end it right now. mspart

No. Wrong. You are crazy if you think a bank would fork over that much money in a loan when they knew everything was a lie. What happens when it all goes bad? They lose out. Banks don't take those chances. They knew Trump was good for it based on their own investigation of his holdings. They said as much. mspart

He was not prosecuted for a crime TPT. Get it straight. This was a civil litigation because they could not prove he committed an actual crime. It was not a criminal trial. Therefore no crime. He was found liable which is all that can be found in a civil litigation. Just like he was found civilly liable for sexually assaulting a woman who couldn't remember when it happened but by golly it happened. You can't have justice when the result is predetermined. How in the world can you be held liable for doing something when the complainant can't even remember which year this supposed thing happened? You are happy this is happening to Trump and refuse to see and understand what this means for the justice system in the USA. mspart

The bank vetted him and found the loan passed muster. There was no fraud. If you don't seen this as a corrupt prosecution, you can't be helped. Again, when the system goes after one side, the natural result is when the winds shift, the other side will be gotten. This is not how this country is supposed to run. Blind lady justice and all that. mspart

Yes a judge can determine what evidence is admitted. For sure, that is how the system works. When the judge is corrupt with a predetermined result in mind, then that is not a fair use of his judgement. That is where your reasoning fails. But the judge said it. Well, the judge predetermined the result. Like the hanging judges of old. mspart

This is not about liking Trump. This is about the abrogation of the judicial system to get predetermined results based on fallacious claims. This is no different than Biden getting a pass for keeping secret document he had no business having in the first place (he was never president because he is too old and doddering and with a horrible memory, or Hillary who Comey determined that no reasonable prosecutor would take her case. Remember she had her own server upon which resided State Department documents, some classified some not. She also tried to obstruct justice by bleachbitting the server hard drive, hammered the cell phones and destroyed subpoened evidence. But no reasonable person would prosecute. So what do you have to do with classified and government property to be prosecuted. Be Trump. That's the lesson here. mspart

Here another: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/12/al_gore_trips_on_artic_ice_mis.html Yes this is from the vaunted NPR: Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast. "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this." Mr Gore's office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore... ...Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. "This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics," Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. So lies are told to convince us of something that has not been predicted. mspart