Pay attention…GUILTY ON ALL 34 FELONY COUNTS!
LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!
Another witch convicted of witchcraft, right?

This with at least one full OAN believing right winger on the jury.
So clear he was guilty there was no way to skew the evidence even to a reasonable doubt for a maggot. The truckload after truckload of evidence corroborated by Cohen and others. Trump had nothing, one witness that completely fell apart and was much worse for Trump than nothing at all, and lots of bluster and whining.

He will try to appeal. He will lose.

Up to 4 years per count, but he’ll likely get a stay at home order and an ankle monitor even though Cohen got 3 years for the same crime, the EXACT same crime, crimes committed FOR Don, not Cohen.

So yes, he could still be elected by people who would elect a multiple felon, rapist, con man, fraud, charity thief, treasonous traitor, and totally immoral man…and he could be impeached and removed on day one for high crimes.

What did he do to "overthrow" the Government?

You think 10,000 people walking the halls of DC could not be stopped?
How many were armed? 20 50 ?

yea that will do it.

Your reasoning is so skewed, it does not even begin to make sense.

Batting fouls and grounders suck But keep swinging the bat. you might even get a real hit.

If you are talking policies that govern individuals, average is meaningless, you need to include the outliers. What I really said was, on average it’s somewhat true a bit more than half the time….with many exceptions, so incredibly far from a rule…far from “I can agree”.

You said “ Are you saying you do not believe that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)?”.
I pointed to one instance where (I assume) chromosomal males do not have an advantage over a chromosomal female in an athletic field….just an example of why I don’t believe it’s always true that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)..one you can’t contradict.

People are never equally gifted or talented, not even with themselves yesterday or tomorrow. I find the premise faulty.

Appears to, so far, in most but not all categories.
In many, the difference is minimal and an exceptional female will surpass males one day in most. Top ranked Kenyan woman already routinely beat top ranked non Kenyan males in long distance running, for one example.

I won’t extrapolate from a temporary skewed position, it leads to ridiculous conclusions….so I won’t be able to agree.
I can agree people believe that.

It’s not just sexual biology. It has nothing to do with genitals. It’s hormones, dna, rna, mental toughness, upbringing, training, health, environment, opportunity, etc. if someone born a woman wants to compete with men, and your position is correct, what’s the harm? If a trans woman, born male but never going through male puberty or taking estrogen and hormone blockers to reverse the effects wants to compete against women, what proof do you have to show any advantage? Two athletes excelling? Out of how many?

Now how expert are you in this field? Expert enough to define the exact point where each person has an advantage vs a disadvantage? I doubt it. But you think it’s fine to deny them the right to participate based on your ignorant assumptions. Do you accept such ignorant, biased assumptions to determine what you may do, how much you may participate in public events? I doubt you would accept it for a second. Think about that.

You want to equate them to non trans people while trying to prove how they’re so different. Pick a lane please.

No matter what your opinion, denying a citizen a chance to compete in public sports is totally unAmerican. I notice how you ignore that, as if to concede it under your breath. It doesn’t go unnoticed that you can’t address that. It IS the point.

Edit : as to the olympics, they have allowed trans gender athletes since 2004. If trans women are really men, why haven’t those records become equal between men and women?

You always have to omit the important bits….and skew the rest. “ kid falls , His gun faces the guy” not “kid flees a crime scene, falls, and AIMS and shoots his rifle at multiple people, hitting two more and killing one of them”.

Kid chases, threatens, and murders man. Kid flees the scene of his crime, pointing his gun at anyone he sees. Kid falls. Man approaches. Kid’s gun faces dozens of people as he’s aiming at anyone near him. Kid shoots randomly at multiple people including some running away from him. Kid takes aim at the closest one, gun misfires, kid inspects and reracks gun while continuing to aim at the man who is reaching to detain him not trying to hit him or shoot him, and shoots him at point blank range even though no gun is EVER aimed at him….at one instant the victim’s gun is held in such a way that it’s within 45 degrees of being pointed in the direction of the thug/armed child whose gun is constantly aimed at him, but the victim’s gun is never aimed nor pointed AT him.

Liar.

You just can’t be honest…. your fault because your hyper biased and totally dishonest (to the point they’ve all successfully argued in court that no reasonable person could believe their obviously made up hyperbole, but you still do) “sources” never tell you the truth and you continue to act as if only they tell the truth.

Such a blatant racist race baiter. I know why your kids don’t like you. If Rittenhouse was black and/or a Democrat, you would be screaming bloody murder and calling for his immediate execution by firing squad, and prison for any who stand with him.

Federal prosecutors won’t file charges citing insufficient evidence that the officer willfully violated federal civil rights statutes (because the police stonewalled and didn’t give them evidence), NOT because shooting a man 7 times in the back because he had a knife but police approached within arms length anyway, intentionally putting themselves in harms way to create a position where they could claim they were in danger is a good shoot, but because they couldn’t prove it was a civil rights case with the police hiding their evidence and stonewalling federal investigators.

No, but you must be.
Baby murder gets the death penalty in Texas. This law calls for civil penalties, not even a parking ticket. It's an infraction of a regulation other citizens can profit from enforcing, not murder in any way shape or form, by Texas law.

You gave me the definition!!! ROTFLMFAHS!!!!
" Definition
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one HUMAN BEING by another"
But you intentionally ignore the fact that the unborn aren't yet people. You can't murder non people. I've pointed this out repeatedly. It seems you must have the illiteracy problem along with your reality problem.

It's true, I WOULD and HAVE defended infanticide, especially historically, but I absolutely have not mentioned it before now in this thread. Supporting abortion is not defending murder by any accepted definition of those words, you have to skew the definitions of human beings and the definition of murder before your position makes sense. Duh. I expect your verbal SAT score was awful, you have a tenuous grasp of English.

According to the bible, yep, not people. Sorry. Try reading it and interpreting what's actually there instead of having someone do it for you.

So, you are advocating Baptist Sharia law.

America has legalized abortions in every state by law because the majority wants it. Don't like it, fuck right off. As easy as that, but your ilk didn't fuck off, you prefer end runs around the constitution and the destruction of codified rights and using legal trickery and convolutions to enact laws that are knowingly unconstitutional but will effectively end abortions before the legal process can invalidate them by bankrupting providers. Anything BUT fucking right off. Take your own advice first, maybe.

Again, the majority in Texas don't want this, didn't vote for it, and absolutely don't want the consequences....which is an exodus of multi national corporations who won't support this nonsense with their wallets.

The majority of Americans are Christians, and a large majority want abortion to be legal and easy to access. Your logic is fatally flawed, being Christian doesn't mean you're anti abortion any more than it means you're anti murder, in fact it means you're more likely to support and defend murder, the bible prescribes it for almost any infraction from actual murder to mowing your lawn on Sunday. The bible says nearly nothing about abortion, what little it does say indicates it's not a crime. Holy fuck, learn your own religion before trying to impose it on others!

Texas was already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, no doubt the backlash for this move will push them hard over the edge. I already cancelled my trip there, and won't be buying any Texas made products. I'm not alone.
Enjoy!

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

So weird seeing people disagree with you, and then go off spouting shit about subjective benefits while married.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's pure win for the woman and pure loss for the man.

It's practically a carrot dangling in front of them daring them to divorce.

eg.

Woman wins :
Woman = Here's 30% of his income for 20 years and 50% of assets, and you get to walk away with no obligations.
Man = You get to keep all your financial marriage obligations for the rest of your productive life while she gets her divorce.

Man wins :
Man = Here's $500 for 6 months. You are an able bodied person and you can take care of yourself after that.
Woman = Pay him $500 for 6 months, then you have your divorce.

... and women win practically all the time.



So considering that most women 'marry up (financially)', and most women don't sacrifice personal life for career (to the extent that men do)... they benefit financially from marriage.

Then the divorce is massively skewed for their benefit.

So in the end, they win in marriage, and win in divorce.

And since it's the men paying for those wins, the men are losing and losing.

So yeah, I think your description is totally on point.




Marriage is so screwed up that I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators that suggest they are even slightly disloyal or temptable. Don't care how much I like them otherwise.

Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk

When the consequence of failure is immediate total financial annihilation, and a heavy financial burden for the rest of your productive life, you better F'ing choose carefully.

Or just don't get married.

(Or change the law so a divorce is actually a divorce for both people. No obligations. Just everyone go their own way.)

-scheherazade

Just like Maddow to skew the truth in her efforts to slander our great leader, he was not first briefed in March....It was February at the latest....but that was in writing, and he can't read.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/russia-bounties-presidential-daily-briefing/index.html

Any math teacher I've ever had would fail you for that. The only reason to remove units is to hide how ridiculous your measurements are....but fine, let's just use ratios...you still fall flat.

Then your trig and measurements suck, because your measurements put the stage floor at a minimum of 4.5' and the ramp a maximum length of 23.5', both of which are obviously excessively wrong.
The SS at the corners of the stage are waist high to the stage floor....are they 9' tall SS? When on stage, two stripes are waist high to Trump, is he 9' tall? I guess to save Trump, you say yes.
The stage segments are at least 10' long, using Trump as a 6'+ measuring stick....is Trump now only 3.5' tall? The ramp covers 3 segments (one slightly short with a podium) then continues for 5-8' beyond the stage (more if I use your breitbart photo)....sure, it's only 23'...that makes sense. *facepalm

Measuring on a curved screen is useless....which you have proven. Measuring based on a photo is also useless unless it's a top down long distance shot, as perspective skews the image. I guess all your college math classes omitted the concept of perspective? Just for giggles, I did it anyway, and still got a slope under 7 degrees, higher than reality thanks to skewed perspective.
It's clear you must insist your measurements are perfect but our eyes lie. Very Trumpian of you, congratulations, and bye. Enjoy your perfectly healthy, not obese and demented president and your near vertical ramps that are suddenly everywhere. Don't come to my house, my ramp is nearly 3 times the slope of the one you claim is 11 degrees, it should be impossible to climb (oddly it's not).

"Scientists" who falsify data or skew experiments to get their preconceived results should be ignored and silenced....those who steal from the company they were just fired from deserve jail.

Just read her wiki page...only bat shit crazy conspiracy nuts believe the government and scientific community as a whole conspired to ruin her because she told the truth....She's disgraced because she made repeatedly proven false anti vaccine claims they want ignored, but antivax conspiracy nuts love her. Reality is she's an anti vaxer whose experiments proved to be faked and whose theories are just insane.

Judy Anne Mikovits (c. 1958) is an American anti-vaccination activist, conspiracy theorist and discredited ex-medical researcher. She has made discredited claims about vaccines, coronavirus, and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). As research director of CFS research organization Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) from 2006 to 2011, Mikovits led a research effort that reported in 2009 that a retrovirus known as xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) was associated with CFS and may have had a causal role. However, the research came under fire, leading to an eventual retraction on December 22, 2011, by the journal Science.

In 2020, Mikovits drew attention online for promoting conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic, via the conspiracist YouTube video Plandemic[6] that were fact-checked and found to be either false or not based on scientific evidence.

Mikovits began to look for XMRV in her Chronic Fatigue Syndrome samples. In late 2008, a graduate student, who subsequently was hired as her technician, obtained two positive results from a group of twenty samples. He and Mikovits successively altered the experimental conditions until all samples gave a positive signal.

In 2009, Mikovits and co-workers reported in the journal Science that they had detected XMRV DNA in CFS patients and control subjects. Negative results were published soon after, disputing Mikovits's findings.

She's a fraud. Why else would Bobby love her so much?

Hate to be that guy again, but I can't help myself.

So, the accusation is that extracting underground water in high enough volume has ruined the water levels in the rivers. The video however, presents multiple anecdotes from locals as 'evidence'. Including even pointing at a high water mark by a bridge/culvert. You know, in a creek that rises and falls heavily between spring melt and fall.

The lack of any meaningful evidence really skews me to classing this as propaganda over documentary. No effort what so ever was made to prove the allegation that Nestle's operations are influencing creek/river water flow.

The social media mobs that take it on themselves to get 'bad' people fired and ideally unemployable make this problem more in our faces now too.

It even leaves me a bit skewed too. If someone kept on an employee that was in the KKK or a neo-nazi group, I'd then wonder about that person for NOT firing them. If the employee was a model employee and kept their beliefs quite though is that right? I see a lot of the SJW lynch mob firings and the only difference is I consider KKK membership bad enough, while the SJW crowd just picks a different political line...

I disagree that there is net benefit from illegal immigrants.

Yes, they do pay taxes. They do not collect retirement benefits.

They also tend to not pay for medical insurance and their jobs do not provide it (for the most part). Generally when they have medical issue, they either go to a free clinic that is there for poor people or they go to a non private hospital emergency room. They cannot be turned away. This cost gets passed on to people paying for their insurance and hospital costs because Hospitals hike up insurance costs to make up the difference. It also causes massive delays at the ER, making it harder for them to deal with people really needing emergency care.

They do utilize public schooling without paying similar amounts of costs. For example, here in Austin, most of the areas that are predominantly Hispanic do not have to pay the same level of property and school taxes as I do. I don't even have kids, but if I lived in East Austin, my taxes would be significantly lower. It has led to East Austin starting to have a Gentrification problem as people/businesses move their to exploit the lower taxes.

Many illegal immigrants carry the minimum or no insurance. My wife's car was totaled some years ago, almost killing her, by an illegal immigrant who had no insurance. We had to use our insurance for her treatment and for the replacement of her vehicle. The man who hit her disappeared.

They utilize fake id and ssid to get welfare benefits. They do get caught now and then, but they flee the area and get new info.

They also do get married to citizens and then, if they get divorced, they flee to avoid child support/alimony. I know of at least 3 friends/acquaintances that had this happen in the last 10 years.

I don't think they are more likely to commit crime than anyone else, but they are more likely to flee the country if caught.

The money they do earn is, in many cases, spent at local ethnic shops that usually are also owned by illegal immigrants. It has become so prevalent that many local stores have tried to modify how they are setup to attract illegal immigrants.

It has been shown that they save and send money out of the US, many times doing their best to avoid any custom duties that would be attached to larger sums.

Because they are violating the law and crossing the border, we spend a massive fuckton of money trying to stop them. This is probably the largest outlay of cost and the one everyone feels, even people living outside of a state affected by illegal immigration.

To be fair, maybe I am getting a skewed picture as I live in a city that has basically said "Fuck the laws, ya'll c'mon in and live here!"

Honestly, if we aren't going to stop them or deport them, then just fucking give them legal status so they are treated like everyone else. At least then they can be hounded by bill collectors too.

Try reading again. You have it totally backwards.

When was I insulting or dismissive? Because it was unforseen that educated people would elect a bombastic insulting sexist popularist con man who was obviously lying to them simply because he wore a red hat and tie? Those are facts, not opinion. Many of them are saying how much they regret it now.

I offered solutions you appeared to agree with, like funding lower education so everyone has a decent, if not equal, opportunity to get an education.
Using race as ONE criteria amongst many for admission is not ideal, as I said, but until a better system for identifying and addressing financial and societal issues that stymie opportunities for people often based on their pigmentation is created, it's the best we've got.

What we don't have is what you imply is the problem.....rich white men with 1570 SAT scores (old school SAT, I don't know how it's scored now) and 3.9 gpas are not being turned away from Yale to make room for indigent African American women with 990 SATs and 2.7 gpas...but the Latina woman with 1550 and 3.6 gpa earned while raising 2 siblings and holding a full time job, yeah, she gets the slot, and that's proper. One skewed test that benefits one privileged group is hardly a decent measure of their work ethic or intelligence....often it's only an indication they hired the right student to take the SAT for them. There were at least 3 hired test takers out of 30 students taking the PSAT when I took it, we talked afterwards.

It is the right (and people making the arguments you are) who are far more insulting and dismissive of non white people's frustrations at being racially discriminated against....to a level and consistency exponentially higher than the trifling discriminations whites suffer. That doesn't mean some whites don't suffer some deleterious effects, it means they come out way ahead in the discrimination game.

You wish to ignore all racial discrimination and racial obstacles except that single instance you can point to where it doesn't come out in your favor, then suddenly racism IS a problem that needs eradicating....but only the kind that harms white guys, forget the myriad of insurmountable racist mountains non whites climb daily, both institutional and societal, this speed bump for whites is unconscionable and must be removed immediately!

Come back and whine about institutional anti white bias when anti white racism permeates every facet of your life but not when your race doesn't give you a free leg up that one time. Maybe talk to your right wing friends about why funding education for others is good for you as step one towards eliminating programs like this that address inequities in opportunities, and giving the less fortunate extra opportunity to overcome their situation is good for all. After reasonable basic educational opportunities are available for all, schools will still take the student's home life, finances, and extra curricular activities into account....with luck that will be on an individual basis eventually, but that's not likely until education reforms occur that give everyone an opportunity to display their skills on a more level field..