Disrespect for the Dead in Arlington National Cemetery

[SmokingFap]

http://youtube.com/post/UgkxAx3ifa98k7EDd_EWJi1VD8jMCjaxPLE6?si=sVFxtrZOOzwZ_GZm

 

[Bn2f]

That's because you leftist lunes outnumber us conservatives 10 to 1. So we answer more often.

A perfect explanation for why you doubt voting integrity and believe being the loudest voice in a room and yard signs as best reasons for why a republican can never lose an election.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

That's because you leftist lunes outnumber us conservatives 10 to 1. So we answer more often.

Yes, Trump supporters are a small minority of Americans. Most of us hate him.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

*Does quick math on posts per year by Rory vs ineedhelp1*:

Rory - 2,600

ineedhelp1 - 2,900



ineedhelp1

For comparison, I average 490 posts per year. Icanhelp1 posts 6x what I do.

 

[Lazaran]

For comparison, I average 490 posts per year. Icanhelp1 posts 6x what I do.

I actually have zero feelings about how much anyone posts on Lit.

ineedhelp1 just needed to be reality checked.

(Full disclosure: I post more than ineedhelp1.)

Lazaran

 

[dmallord]

There should have been a venue change to assure a fair trial.

New Yorkers said it was fair. Who are you to challenge them on what is or is not fair? If you question that then you should allow every alleged criminal the right to a fair trial in another district of their choosing.

Because you assume Trump cannot bet a fair trial anywhere, you want to move the venue? Where? To a red district, perhaps?

 

[dmallord]

For comparison, I average 490 posts per year. Icanhelp1 posts 6x what I do.

Are you looking for a third-place ribbon?

 

[dmallord]

The case isn't final. Until it is, then neither your nor I actually know.

A person who has been convicted of a felony is typically referred to as a "felon" regardless of whether the case is on appeal. The conviction is legally in place unless and until it is overturned on appeal. However, the appeal process provides the opportunity to challenge that conviction. If the appeal is successful and the conviction is reversed, the person would no longer be considered a felon.

In short, after the initial conviction, the person is generally considered a felon, but that status could change if the appeal overturned the conviction.

 

[dmallord]

Certainly not a district that voted 90 to 95% democrat. imho

Political affiliation is not an allowed question of prospective jurors. No one knows the jury's political background.

While jurors' political affiliations aren't asked during selection, it’s a mistake to assume that political leanings dictate the outcome of a trial. The court’s obligation is to ensure fairness, and our judicial system is built on robust safeguards to minimize bias, including challenges for cause and peremptory strikes. The law demands jurors base their decisions on the evidence presented, not their political inclinations.

Yes, concerns about political bias are understandable, particularly in highly polarized times. However, the assumption that a Republican ex-president cannot receive a fair trial in a predominantly Democratic area is flawed. Claiming that a fair trial is "impossible" dismisses the system's integrity, the rigor of the jury selection process, and the fundamental role of evidence-based decision-making. The court takes its duty seriously, and fairness does not vanish based on the political majority of a jurisdiction.

If you believe in the principles of justice—impartiality, evidence, and the rule of law—then you must trust that the system worked as intended, even in difficult cases. Rejecting the verdict based solely on assumptions about political bias without clear evidence of wrongdoing reveals a deeper bias against the system itself. To undermine the outcome on these grounds alone is to challenge the very foundation of our legal process. Fair trials are not contingent upon political demographics; they are upheld by the court's integrity and the evidence, and we should respect that or risk dismantling the rule of law itself.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Political affiliation is not an allowed question of prospective jurors. No one knows the jury's political background.

While jurors' political affiliations aren't asked during selection, it’s a mistake to assume that political leanings dictate the outcome of a trial. The court’s obligation is to ensure fairness, and our judicial system is built on robust safeguards to minimize bias, including challenges for cause and peremptory strikes. The law demands jurors base their decisions on the evidence presented, not their political inclinations.

Yes, concerns about political bias are understandable, particularly in highly polarized times. However, the assumption that a Republican ex-president cannot receive a fair trial in a predominantly Democratic area is flawed. Claiming that a fair trial is "impossible" dismisses the system's integrity, the rigor of the jury selection process, and the fundamental role of evidence-based decision-making. The court takes its duty seriously, and fairness does not vanish based on the political majority of a jurisdiction.

If you believe in the principles of justice—impartiality, evidence, and the rule of law—then you must trust that the system worked as intended, even in difficult cases. Rejecting the verdict based solely on assumptions about political bias without clear evidence of wrongdoing reveals a deeper bias against the system itself. To undermine the outcome on these grounds alone is to challenge the very foundation of our legal process. Fair trials are not contingent upon political demographics; they are upheld by the court's integrity and the evidence, and we should respect that or risk dismantling the rule of law itself.

Democrats in general have abandoned any interest in fair trials and impartiality. One assumes any jury in a Democrat-heavy jurisdiction will decide based on their inherent political bias. Unfortunately, the integrity of judges, prosecutors and juries has long been thrown out the window in Democrat jurisdictions, which is why their verdicts keep being reversed when they reach higher courts. To be fair, every juror in a Democrat jurisdiction should be dismissed for lack of impartiality.

 

[dmallord]

yeah the Arlington incident blown way out of proportion from what i have seen and read. The dems have done nothing for veterans and that is a fact you may hate that but its the truth.
For every 1 biden/harris person I see at the VFW there are 10-14 trumpers and its not even close. The dems need to focus on americans and keeping jobs here and not funding endless regime changing wars and opening the southern border where crime has spiked same with drugs pouring in. And they are not reporting a lot of what is going on so your data about items lessening is total bullshit

What is not blown out of proportion is Trump violated Federal statutes regarding the use of disallowed images and recordings at the cemetery for political fodder.

His press secretary was notified of the law regarding political filming. The notification was disregarded. A woman official representing the US Army was shoved aside while trying to prevent the filming.

Watch the Tic Tok video Trump posted and tell me it was not political, it did not violate the restrictions, and Trump had the right to disregard federal law. That is not blown way out of proportion.

The rest of your words are not relevant to the Arlington incident. Please stay on topic.

 

[dmallord]

Democrats in general have abandoned any interest in fair trials and impartiality. One assumes any jury in a Democrat-heavy jurisdiction will decide based on their inherent political bias. Unfortunately, the integrity of judges, prosecutors and juries has long been thrown out the window in Democrat jurisdictions, which is why their verdicts keep being reversed when they reach higher courts. To be fair, every juror in a Democrat jurisdiction should be dismissed for lack of impartiality.

Hum... to quote a master, Yoda, young Tzang, "You Must Unlearn What You Have Learned."

You would be wise to heed his warning, "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Your distrust in the foundations of democracy and our justice system is cruelly twisted by your prejudices and unwillingness to believe in the strength of the core principles the Constitution contains.

Your disbelief is most unsettling.

 

[icanhelp1]

Hum... to quote a master, Yoda, young Tzang, "You Must Unlearn What You Have Learned."

You would be wise to heed his warning, "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Your distrust in the foundations of democracy and our justice system is cruelly twisted by your prejudices and unwillingness to believe in the strength of the core principles the Constitution contains.

Your disbelief is most unsettling.

View attachment 2385595

The only core principle demonstrated by a Democrat AG and a Democrat DA is get Trump at all cost. Just ask them, they campaigned on it. Take your TDS glasses off. If what happened to Trump happened to Biden you’d be screaming that’s a flagrant violations of the Constitution.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, Trump supporters are a small minority of Americans. Most of us hate him.

Only on lit.

 

[dmallord]

The only core principle demonstrated by a Democrat AG and a Democrat DA is get Trump at all cost. Just ask them, they campaigned on it. Take your TDS glasses off. If what happened to Trump happened to Biden you’d be screaming that’s a flagrant violations of the Constitution.

Trump is also campaigning. He says he has every right to go after the people who prosecuted him and is 'entitled' to it. He has also said he plans to dismantle the DOJ and form his own version of justice.

Are you screaming that his comments are a flagrant violation of the Constitution here?

Didn't think so. But thanks for demonstrating your bias, HDS, and BDS.

 

[Bray123]

To be fair, every juror in a Democrat jurisdiction should be dismissed for lack of impartiality.

But not felon supporters in red areas who are totally impartial.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

That's because you leftist lunes outnumber us conservatives 10 to 1. So we answer more often.

That ain't a flex or an indication that you actually answer people. That's you choosing to blab more just not to feel like a minority. Sad shit, homie.

It's no surprise that most of you schmucks deliberately refuse to use the multi-post feature when replying to others. You think a higher post count under your name gives you a social prestige.

also ask yourselves why conservatives come to a liberal/left-leaning site to begin with. A community dedicated to prurient interests, expression of the erotic and progressive groupthink only exists with the liberal/left...and despite all the shit-talking y'all do, you're here because there's no other place for you to go.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-06-2016/oNoFkb.gif

 

[jomar]

Lit's version of Goebbels believes "repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it"

It’s amazing that you parrot trumps actual strategy and claim it’s the Dems that do it. Who won the 2020 election?

Trump this! Trump that! BLAH BLAH BLAH. Maybe one of you lit lemmings could at least attempt something more original. It's comical watching you and your posse littering PB with used up talking points, kind of like an old reliable washing machines 'WASH! RINSE and REPEAT'

so you’re blaming the Dems for doing something trump has been doing since he lost the election then you double down called out about your hypocrisy. Feeling scared about something?

 

[icanhelp1]

Trump is also campaigning. He says he has every right to go after the people who prosecuted him and is 'entitled' to it.

No he won't. You have zero examples of him doing that during his first term, more TDS on steroids. You need to change your depends.

He has also said he plans to dismantle the DOJ and form his own version of justice.

Cite where he said that. You can bet he's going to replace Biden's cronies and put in place leadership that will administer the law fairly, judiciously and in accordance with the constitution.

Are you screaming that his comments are a flagrant violation of the Constitution here?

?

Didn't think so. But thanks for demonstrating your bias, HDS, and BDS.

I am biased, I disapprove pretty much of everything the Biden/Harris administration has done. My #1 complaint is how Biden has set up our soldiers as target practice from terrorist. His foreign policy on every level is ass backwards.

He could've had Hillary prosecuted and he didn't.

Move on, you're another version of wash, rinse and repeat.

Another one of your incoherent rants.

 

[jomar]

The only core principle demonstrated by a Democrat AG and a Democrat DA is get Trump at all cost. Just ask them, they campaigned on it. Take your TDS glasses off. If what happened to Trump happened to Biden you’d be screaming that’s a flagrant violations of the Constitution.

In other words, the law and order ex-president should not be held accountable for breaking the law. Got it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No he won't. You have zero examples of him doing that during his first term, more TDS on steroids. You need to change your depends.

Cite where he said that. You can bet he's going to replace Biden's cronies and put in place leadership that will administer the law fairly, judiciously and in accordance with the constitution.

?

I am biased, I disapprove pretty much of everything the Biden/Harris administration has done. My #1 complaint is how Biden has set up our soldiers as target practice from terrorist. His foreign policy on every level is ass backwards.

He could've had Hillary prosecuted and he didn't.

Move on, you're another version of wash, rinse and repeat.

Another one of your incoherent rants.

LOL! If it was incoherent you wouldn’t have been able to understand it well enough to respond to each thought.

 

[icanhelp1]

That ain't a flex or an indication that you actually answer people. That's you choosing to blab more just not to feel like a minority. Sad shit, homie.

It's no surprise that most of you schmucks deliberately refuse to use the multi-post feature when replying to others. You think a higher post count under your name gives you a social prestige.

also ask yourselves why conservatives come to a liberal/left-leaning site to begin with. A community dedicated to prurient interests, expression of the erotic and progressive groupthink only exists with the liberal/left...and despite all the shit-talking y'all do, you're here because there's no other place for you to go.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-06-2016/oNoFkb.gif

What would you be without us, nothing more than a mutual admiration society. We realize that you hate opposing viewpoints, but hey, we're trying to educate you. When all you lemmings say the same things at the same time, well that's cultish behavior.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

What would you be without us, nothing more than a mutual admiration society. We realize that you hate opposing viewpoints, but hey, we're trying to educate you. When all you lemmings say the same things at the same time, well that's cultish behavior.

People doing the same thing at the same time you say……

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No dipshit. The prosecution was able to invent a never-before-attempted novel legal theory that has yet to withstand the appellate process. I know that makes your nipples hard but nobody gives a fuck.

Maybe, but didn't the Treasury Department and Justice Department create a novel way to prosecute Capone? You gona bitch about that as well? Start up a group to posthumously pardon him?

 

[Aglaopheme]

No he won't. You have zero examples of him doing that during his first term, more TDS on steroids. You need to change your depends.

Cite where he said that. You can bet he's going to replace Biden's cronies and put in place leadership that will administer the law fairly, judiciously and in accordance with the constitution.

?

I am biased, I disapprove pretty much of everything the Biden/Harris administration has done. My #1 complaint is how Biden has set up our soldiers as target practice from terrorist. His foreign policy on every level is ass backwards.

He could've had Hillary prosecuted and he didn't.

Move on, you're another version of wash, rinse and repeat.

Another one of your incoherent rants.

Why didn’t Trump prosecute Hillary?