Why Biden Will Win

[adrina]

I think I mentioned that we'd be seeing all kinds of rants from those who made decisions in haste as things fall apart for them.

I just didn't realize that the ranting had already started.

Jeez you are truly boring.

Yawn.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Always vote FOR something, never merely against something. That's democracy, not corruption.

Unless you are voting for corruption
You aren’t, so congrats
You are just allowing it to rot America
We need money out of politics
This means a few justices need impeaching
Guess who won’t do that ?

 

[AlexBailey]

Legal decisions are FACT.

Oh cool!

So you finally admit that someone who has transitioned from male to female and had their birth certificate and identification legally changed is in FACT female.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I think I mentioned that we'd be seeing all kinds of rants from those who made decisions in haste as things fall apart for them.

I just didn't realize that the ranting had already started.

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and withstood many attempts to overturn it for 49 years.

49 years of decided case law does not appear to be a decision made "in haste".

Blithely overturning Roe to enact a desired political outcome strikes me as the epitome of the ends justifying the means.

I recognize that your desperate need to rationalize the Supreme Court's newfound habit of throwing out decades of Stare Decisis (precedent) to "legislate from the bench" requires tortuous legal interpretation of case law , i.e. a man found responsible for sexual abuse is technically "innocent" because he is a "responsible sexual abuser".

 

[HisArpy]

Oh cool!

So you finally admit that someone who has transitioned from male to female and had their birth certificate and identification legally changed is in FACT female.

Yup. Just like how the court said that abortion is a States Rights issue. Or that transgenderism is a mental illness.

What I don't get is how you don't EVER understand what my position is. I stand for the law. If the law says something is a fact, then I'm in agreement with that.

OTOH, if the law says something isn't a fact, then I'm not going to go all fucking hairbrained stupid trying to tell everyone the court is wrong.

You know, like you do.

 

[AlexBailey]

Yup. Just like how the court said that abortion is a States Rights issue. Or that transgenderism is a mental illness.

What I don't get is how you don't EVER understand what my position is. I stand for the law. If the law says something is a fact, then I'm in agreement with that.

OTOH, if the law says something isn't a fact, then I'm not going to go all fucking hairbrained stupid trying to tell everyone the court is wrong.

You know, like you do.

I’m talking about actual provable facts, and how law is a construct.

I understand your position and am pointing out how it is based on a construct, not actual reality.

Trump is a criminal. That’s a legal and actual fact. He mishandled classified documents - we’ve all seen him speaking about it, falsely claiming he had declassified them, claiming he had the right to keep them when he did not. Having the case dismissed does not take his words and admissions out of public knowledge.

The fact is that voters know the facts from Trumps own words.

Trump lies about the 2020 election being stolen. The investigations in several states have proven that he was lying, courts dismissed all of his legal claims.

You spin. You do not honestly represent fact, you represent legal positions that cast your opinion in the best light. That’s what you, as an attorney and a forum member , do.

 

[HisArpy]

I’m talking about actual provable facts, and how law is a construct.

I understand your position and am pointing out how it is based on a construct, not actual reality.

Trump is a criminal. That’s a legal and actual fact. He mishandled classified documents - we’ve all seen him speaking about it, falsely claiming he had declassified them, claiming he had the right to keep them when he did not. Having the case dismissed does not take his words and admissions out of public knowledge.

The fact is that voters know the facts from Trumps own words.

Trump lies about the 2020 election being stolen. The investigations in several states have proven that he was lying, courts dismissed all of his legal claims.

You spin. You do not honestly represent fact, you represent legal positions that cast your opinion in the best light. That’s what you, as an attorney, do.

Yawn, more fake drivel designed to promote a political narrative.

Yes Trump was convicted 34 times. What you don't include is the FACT that he hasn't been sentenced because the court is wrestling with the issue of immunity and that most of the testimony against Trump violates that immunity.

So, instead of citing FACTS, what you do is stop short and repeat a bumper sticker slogan because if the full TRUTH were told you'd have to admit that what you say isn't actually the truth, it's a HALF truth. Which means it's not a "fact" even though you want it to be.

So again I tell you that I stand for the law and I speak TRUTH and FACTS, not half truths or biased viewpoints masquerading as truth and fact. For instance, I have no issues with saying Trump was convicted 34 times for multiple felonies because that's a fact. However, in order for that fact to be the truth, I must include the more than likely possibility that those convictions will get an order of vacatur. Something you do not do. Why? Because it defeats your narrative.

I also have no issues with saying that Trump was found liable in the E. Jean Carroll case. What I WILL NOT do, which you and others like you actually do, is say he is a convicted rapist because that's a flat out lie. And of course I also include the statement that I believe the verdict will be overturned on appeal. Anyone who understands that the court reducing his bond amount will also understand why they did it.

These are things you don't have to like. What you have to do is accept them. That you refuse to do that only shows how desperate you are to find something/anything derogatory to say because YOU CANNOT ADMIT TO THE TRUTH.

Which is something that's all on you and only you.

 

[AlexBailey]

Yawn, more fake drivel designed to promote a political narrative.

Yes Trump was convicted 34 times. What you don't include is the FACT that he hasn't been sentenced because the court is wrestling with the issue of immunity and that most of the testimony against Trump violates that immunity.

So, instead of citing FACTS, what you do is stop short and repeat a bumper sticker slogan because if the full TRUTH were told you'd have to admit that what you say isn't actually the truth, it's a HALF truth. Which means it's not a "fact" even though you want it to be.

So again I tell you that I stand for the law and I speak TRUTH and FACTS, not half truths or biased viewpoints masquerading as truth and fact. For instance, I have no issues with saying Trump was convicted 34 times for multiple felonies because that's a fact. However, in order for that fact to be the truth, I must include the more than likely possibility that those convictions will get an order of vacatur. Something you do not do. Why? Because it defeats your narrative.

I also have no issues with saying that Trump was found liable in the E. Jean Carroll case. What I WILL NOT do, which you and others like you actually do, is say he is a convicted rapist because that's a flat out lie. And of course I also include the statement that I believe the verdict will be overturned on appeal. Anyone who understands that the court reducing his bond amount will also understand why they did it.

These are things you don't have to like. What you have to do is accept them. That you refuse to do that only shows how desperate you are to find something/anything derogatory to say because YOU CANNOT ADMIT TO THE TRUTH.

Which is something that's all on you and only you.

Now you’re caught in another of your spun lies. I have never factually claimed Trump is a rapist. I haven’t seen or heard proof of that myself and I don’t say that he is a “rapist”.

It is a fact - and a legal fact that Trump’s businesses have committed crimes while he was the primary decision maker. The fact that they happened too far in the past to prosecute him personally doesn’t change those facts.

So tell me, when two skilled attorneys represent different sides of a legal argument, is one representing actual fact while the other is lying? Or are they arguing legal positions based on the what is most likely to bring a judgment in their favor?

Ever lost a case, counselor? Are you a proven liar?

 

[TrailerHitch]

 

[TrailerHitch]

 

[HisArpy]

Now you’re caught in another of your spun lies. I have never factually claimed Trump is a rapist. I haven’t seen or heard proof of that myself and I don’t say that he is a “rapist”.

It is a fact legal fact that Trump’s businesses have committed crimes while he was the primary decision maker. The fact that they happened too far in the past to prosecute him no doesn’t change those facts.

So tell me, when two skilled attorneys represent different sides of a legal argument, is one representing actual fact while the other is lying? Or are they arguing legal positions based on the what is most likely to bring a judgment in their favor?

Ever lost a case, counselor? Are you a proven liar?

You keep moaning along on the same note trying to find anything you can use as a hook to somehow think you're "winning" when you really aren't.

Businesses commit business crimes every day. That doesn't mean the CEO personally did, only that the business did something that's against the law. Instead of acknowledging that fact you conflate Trump personally with his business, which is a strawman argument.

You also engage in the same type of rhetoric as others of your same ilk and beliefs when it comes to statements about Trump, law, and facts. While you may not have PERSONALLY said he was a rapist, you stand quietly by while others say it and do nothing to correct them though you know they lie. This is called tacit agreement and it makes you just as guilty as they. You may choose to deny it, but when someone is in lockstep with 9 out of 10 beliefs by another person but doesn't correct that other person on the 10th belief even though you know it's false, well, let's just say slime rubs off and you're coated with it.

Finally, you keep trying to raise my profession as if it's some kind of talisman you can use to shield your BS from the light of analysis. It doesn't work because you're not a lawyer and trying to compare your BS arguments to those an actual lawyer would use isn't possible. You're not a lawyer, you don't argue like a lawyer, you fail to include opposing viewpoints which are on point against your position, and you attempt to spin half truths into fact while ignoring actual facts which disprove your theories. In short, you even suck at this too.

Have a great day.

 

[AlexBailey]

You keep moaning along on the same note trying to find anything you can use as a hook to somehow think you're "winning" when you really aren't.

Businesses commit business crimes every day. That doesn't mean the CEO personally did, only that the business did something that's against the law. Instead of acknowledging that fact you conflate Trump personally with his business, which is a strawman argument.

You also engage in the same type of rhetoric as others of your same ilk and beliefs when it comes to statements about Trump, law, and facts. While you may not have PERSONALLY said he was a rapist, you stand quietly by while others say it and do nothing to correct them though you know they lie. This is called tacit agreement and it makes you just as guilty as they. You may choose to deny it, but when someone is in lockstep with 9 out of 10 beliefs by another person but doesn't correct that other person on the 10th belief even though you know it's false, well, let's just say slime rubs off and you're coated with it.

Finally, you keep trying to raise my profession as if it's some kind of talisman you can use to shield your BS from the light of analysis. It doesn't work because you're not a lawyer and trying to compare your BS arguments to those an actual lawyer would use isn't possible. You're not a lawyer, you don't argue like a lawyer, you fail to include opposing viewpoints which are on point against your position, and you attempt to spin half truths into fact while ignoring actual facts which disprove your theories. In short, you even suck at this too.

Have a great day.

So according to your logic you must be a tacit groper and assaulter of women, a business cheat, and an election denier.


Fuck off, weasel. You’re proving my point about your spin cycles every time you post.

 

[Lazaran]

L

Yup. Just like how the court said that abortion is a States Rights issue. Or that transgenderism is a mental illness.

What I don't get is how you don't EVER understand what my position is. I stand for the law. If the law says something is a fact, then I'm in agreement with that.

OTOH, if the law says something isn't a fact, then I'm not going to go all fucking hairbrained stupid trying to tell everyone the court is wrong.

You know, like you do.

"The Law" supported all sorts of heinous and indefensible acts and practices, once upon a time, and Derpy would have defended "The Law" without question back THEN - just like Derpy defends "The Law" supporting heinous and indefensible acts and practices without question NOW.



Derpy

 

[jomar]

Why Biden Will Not Win.

He is not running. That is a partial victory for the U.S. but not a full victory.

I'm not your garden variety anything - yes, I been fully supportive of Trump yet I can all but guarantee nobody understands my position on Trump, the right v the left or even Biden. But as much as I would love to feel some sense of relief I don't and I as tempting as it would be to lay out my position, I cannot because it would be an exercise in frustration. I'll say this; anyone who knows me at all (and nobody knows me well, but if there were anyone who did, they'd agree with the few people who know anything about me) would say that my position on humanity is quite pessimistic and I 100% understand that response, but it is incorrect. I've actually been quite optimistic, which is actually tragic, because what that means is all the negative adjectives I use to describe humanity are not only valid, they actually paint a picture so much happier than reality it's frightening. As fundamentally stupid as I have considered most people to be, humans prove me wrong over and over by showing they are, in fact, of greater stupidity than anything I predicted. Not even I considered myself an optimist but actually I very much have been, and that is sad.

I will say this - the reason I feel little in the way of relief is that everything I have seen in terms of evidence has told me that anyone who sees the issues in the U.S. to be issues of right v left are completely missing the true enemy. Yes, wokism, liberalism, progressivism, etc. are all enemies not just of this country but of humanity in that they are all wholly irrational in every sense. Worse, the purveyors of these ideologies, just as with feminism, tout the ideals knowing full well they are false and damaging, ironically most severely to the very groups they claim to help. It baffles and saddens me how widely these are accepted. To show fairness, equally baffling to me is the acceptance of a fundamental ideology of the right, which is christianity. That is as false as any woke idea and while currently not as damaging at least in certain ways, religion in the course of human history has been quite damaging. My point isn't tallying the damage but the fact that the right and leftt are basically fraternal twins who hate each other yet have the same parents, Mr. & Mrs. Irrational. Just as intelligence is not wisdom, so evil is not stupidity and Lenin understood one thing very well when he called religion the "opiate of the masses".

With regards to the U.S. (and not just the U.S.) the true enemy is not even contained within our borders. And while so far I have to bet my chips on Trump and yes I support Trump which is not a position I always held. A fact I'd be more than happy to politely debate: Trump had a very successful Presidency. I thought in 2015 the guy was a clown! But I'm an empiricist and he proved me very wrong. That is the basis of my current support. Could the dems come up with a candidate that I would be reasonably ok with? Yes, but they won't. Putting some money where my mouth is (ewwww, money is dirty, you know how many hands have touched...?) I wager the dems will announce Michael Obama (otherwise known as "Michelle" and no, that's not a jab, that's biology) as the candidate. That would be unacceptable as would be Harris, Newsom or pretty much anyone else. Tulsi Gabbard would be not horrible but she isn't even a democrat anymore. I don't know enough on RFK.

But I find little relief because of two things, one is, to me, fact and the other wild opinion. Fact: Fundamental things must occur in the U.S. to even get it back to a Constitutional Republic (which it has not been since about the 1930's) and those things did not happen under Trump nor will they if he wins. #2 is my 2024 Official Wild Speculative Statement and guess what, it's fun because it's testable! This is 51/49, reflecting almost maximum uncertainty but I think the dems may win again in 2024 the same way they did in 2020 - by completely usurping the voters and rigging the entire thing and I have FANTASTIC evidence that happened in 2020, but who cares? Obviously me, but only because I find the evidence very fascinating and I never heard one person speak to it, ever.

The enemy forces that keep the Deep State alive are global and because people need a target and I don't care, here's ammo to give you all reasons to point at me and laugh. COVID was not a lab leak. COVID was a well orchestrated release that occured at many points on the globe. Second, the push for EVs has the ultimate goal of ushering in the implantation of tracking chips in every citizen of the U.S. Third, the political bodies that ultimately will strip U.S. citizens of all Constitutional rights will not be from within the U.S., rather they will be the U.N., W.H.O. and possibly NATO. Bonus Point-At-The-Crackpot Belief: Maui was accomplished via a directed energy weapon, wholly manmade, not anything "natural". And it was NOT a success, far too many survived versus the goal.

The world is complicated. One thing is not; everything happening is motivated by one goal: Power. Money is a more direct motive, yes, but nobody who has money cares about money, they care about what money can do - money is a tool. And I know what all of you are thinking right now which is, "I think I'm reading the insane ramblings of a MAJOR tool!"....amirite? I am and that's ok and no I have zero martyr complex - martyrs believe in things despite taking great losses for those beliefs. I have nothing to lose because I came in with nothing. That doesn't make me tough or badass or brave...but it does make me dangerous and if that statement is puzzling I would refer you to a famous poem, The Men Who Wanted To Be Left Alone, which should be mandatory reading especially for one very stupid person who sadly may learn a great lesson but I truly hope not because as one lady said once, "ain't nobody got time for that!"

So legit curious question. How do you square being a cross dressing sissy cumslut with your hard right politics, particularly with the first few sentences in your second full paragraph.

Or is your profile not really who you are

 

[jomar]

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and withstood many attempts to overturn it for 49 years.

49 years of decided case law does not appear to be a decision made "in haste".

Blithely overturning Roe to enact a desired political outcome strikes me as the epitome of the ends justifying the means.

I recognize that your desperate need to rationalize the Supreme Court's newfound habit of throwing out decades of Stare Decisis (precedent) to "legislate from the bench" requires tortuous legal interpretation of case law , i.e. a man found responsible for sexual abuse is technically "innocent" because he is a "responsible sexual abuser".

Seems like I recall all those SCOTUS judges confirmed during the trump admin declaring Roe v was settled law under oath

 

[HisArpy]

So according to your logic you must be a tacit groper and assaulter of women, a business cheat, and an election denier.


Fuck off, weasel. You’re proving my point about your spin cycles every time you post.

You need to give it a rest. You're not impressing anyone with your political dogma and ad hom attacks.

 

[AlexBailey]

You need to give it a rest. You're not impressing anyone with your political dogma and ad hom attacks.

Dear weasel,
I called you out for what you do. That’s not ad-hom, it’s saying you are a lawyer. Is that some kind of insult?

 

[HisArpy]

Dear weasel,
I called you out for what you do. That’s not ad-hom, it’s saying you are a lawyer. Is that some kind of insult?

It's Ad Hom and you're more than aware it is and why you're doing it. Trying to falsely redefine Ad Hom as something it isn't in order to save your ass from ridicule isn't going to work.

 

[Bn2f]

View attachment 2368431

 

[AlexBailey]

It's Ad Hom and you're more than aware it is and why you're doing it. Trying to falsely redefine Ad Hom as something it isn't in order to save your ass from ridicule isn't going to work.

You’re the one subject to ridicule for your denial.

You consider law “fact” while also admitting it is a construct. You claim to speak of “fact” while refusing to acknowledge that law does not always determine truth - of course you probably conflate all three to be the same thing.


You have said that it is the responsibility of an attorney to give their client a robust representation. I can see that you do that with your political views - you use your legal analysis to the benefit of your political position.

Do you deny this?

Is that an insult?

 

[HisArpy]

You’re the one subject to ridicule for your denial.

You consider law “fact” while also admitting it is a construct. You claim to speak of “fact” while refusing to acknowledge that law does not always determine truth - of course you probably conflate all three to be the same thing.


You have said that it is the responsibility of an attorney to give their client a robust representation. I can see that you do that with your political views - you use your legal analysis to the benefit of your political position.

Do you deny this?

Is that an insult?

Any time you attempt to inject personal real life commentary it's Ad Hom. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

It's past time for you to give this a rest. You're not going to "one up" me because you don't have the brains for it, you don't have the stamina for it, and you start with a handicap position in the next county.

You can say/do whatever you like to soothe your ego but you know the score and you're not winning this contest. Why? Because it's not about you and me, it's about everyone else who reads these posts and realizes what a fuckup you are. Every time you tug up your undies and wade forth to do battle you just prove it to them once again.

Time for you to stop being stupid and taking any of this personally.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

So much winning...

You're going to get tired of so much winning.

 

[YDB95]

So much winning...

You're going to get tired of so much winning.

That might well be the one and only time Trump was right about something. We kicked him to the curb in 2020, fair and square, and I for one did get tired of how many times we had to repeat that.

 

[AlexBailey]

Any time you attempt to inject personal real life commentary it's Ad Hom. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

It's past time for you to give this a rest. You're not going to "one up" me because you don't have the brains for it, you don't have the stamina for it, and you start with a handicap position in the next county.

You can say/do whatever you like to soothe your ego but you know the score and you're not winning this contest. Why? Because it's not about you and me, it's about everyone else who reads these posts and realizes what a fuckup you are. Every time you tug up your undies and wade forth to do battle you just prove it to them once again.

Time for you to stop being stupid and taking any of this personally.

Never back down! Never surrender!

It’s not a question, it’s an observation. You’re a weasel assed attorney trying to claim you are arguing without being a weasel assed attorney.

 

[HisArpy]

Never back down! Never surrender!

It’s not a question, it’s an observation. You’re a weasel assed attorney trying to claim you are arguing without being a weasel assed attorney.

Give it up dudly, you've lost all your credibility now. Even ninny girl is giving you the death knell with her thumbs up.