search results matching tag: please stop

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (19)     Sift Talk (6)     Blogs (2)     Comments (384)   

Judge Pronounced Trump Guilty Before Trial Began!

newtboy says...

🤦‍♂️No bob, they are not. THE FACTS WERE NOT DISPUTED BY TRUMP OR THE TRUMP ORG AT ALL, not in court…he submitted most of them.
Trump disputes the facts on camera, but not in court under oath. He can’t. The documents are what they are. He was too cowardly and guilty to take the stand…his smartest move yet.
Trump valued Maralago at $18 million for taxes, not the DA. He also valued it at 100 times that value to get good loan terms that saved him hundreds of millions the banks and county were then deprived of because of his fraud. Understand? I’m sure not.
I did the math, if his stated bank values are truthful, he defrauded the government out of well over $700 million in decades of unpaid taxes for one property.

What was presented during the prosecution “side” of the “hearing” bob? Nothing…because there was no prosecution phase, it was summary judgement based on what was presented by both parties during DISCOVERY. There has only been a “damages” phase of trial since the prima facie case made at discovery necessitated a sumary judgement…not a “prosecution side”.

Bob. This is civil court, not a criminal trial. Please stop trying to explain things you are wholly ignorant about.

In your example, a criminal trial with different rules, the defense could be you didn’t see them, or they dove in front of your moving car, or you were having a medical issue….or one of a thousand mitigating factors. Trump presented no mitigating factors explaining the frauds, the differing values that changed 10000% in value on paper with his signature swearing to the truthfulness of the values he presented, values he knew were fantasy, so was found guilty.
(Side note- in your example the victim’s heirs would also get a civil trial where prima facie guilt would be established by the witnesses and your admission you hit them and you would need to have evidence supporting your affirmative defense that it was under duress to evade liability, just as they would need to prove malicious intent or recklessness to get punitive damages, IMO).

😂 “Property values can’t be fraud in any way”. 😂 hilarious since submitting fraudulent values is exactly what he was found guilty of! 😂

The banks indicated massive fraud, who told you they didn’t? Trump? The banks lost over $180 million in interest they should have received if the collateral values had been correct. Yes, they made some money, but lost out on $180 million plus.
When you get a loan based on fraud like this, even if you pay it back you still comitted a crime and any penny you made from that crime can be recovered from you, exactly what’s happening.
It’s as if Trump submitted documents “proving” his credit rating was 800 but in fact it was below 400, then saying it’s no crime because he paid his low interest credit card bills, pay no attention to the lower rates and perks he received because of his fraud, they’re nothingburgers…$180 million nothing burgers.

This is a BS showman disgraced ex president caught red handed. You know it, he knows it. No one is blinded, you are simply dishonest.

What of me statement are bullshit or not in this hearing/case?
The disclaimers don’t mean Trump can just make up the numbers, like he did. I know he claims that, he already lost that point in court. He gave fraudulent numbers, values, square footage, claimed unpermitted unbuilt rentals were filled and collecting rent, claims he didn’t add “brand value” but it’s there listed on the documents.

lol. You get your “information” from crack heads, failed comedians turned pundits, and con men like rapist Trump. I get mine directly from the courts, then verify, then look at what nonsense MAGA is saying about it, then debunk your nonsense. Stop projecting. I’m not stupid. I’m no dick. I have almost no ego. I simply hate stupid lies and the stupid lying liars who lie them stupidly and I have the testicular fortitude and perspicacity to factually contradict them with facts, figures, and references.

You don’t ever look for shit, you liar. You take what the MAGA machine hands you and you say what they said to say. You haven’t had an individual thought since you’ve been posting here, not one. Every word you post can be found in the MAGAsphere written by someone else who makes money by telling you lies to repeat.

Yes, Trump was found guilty during discovery before the courtroom trial began, which is perfectly normal and reasonable in cases where the evidence is incontrovertible like this one. That’s the United States legal system, no surprise you don’t understand it….you don’t understand thing about my country.

Now whine that he couldn’t have a jury trial just because he didn’t ask for one until after his trial had started. So unfair! 😂

bobknight33 said:

But the facts are disputed , which mitigates the ability of the judge to make such decision. This was presented during the 11 weeks of the prosecution side of this hearing.



It only work is such cases as for example 5 people see me run over and kill someone. That is not is dispute.
What is or could be to mitigate my conviction is to show just cause -- IE being robed at gunpoint or such.


This "trial" is about property value. This cant be fraud in any way. Trump places a value and banks do the same and an agreement is made. No bank or lender indicated fraud -- Every bank got paid back, with interest and some made other deals on other projects.

This is a BS show trial. prejudged before it even started.

Only the ignorant are blinded.

All you statement below are bullshit -- none of that in this hearing. Every proposal for loans clearly had disclaimers for banks to do their own due diligence in their evaluation. Some thought higher some though lower-- but all made loans and got paid back.


Sadly stupid dicks with big egos, like you push false information.

I look for actual facts like presented -- Her own words - Trump Guilty before the trial began-- Thats BS

Ken Casey of Dropkick Murphys on an epic rant against MAGA

Ghostbusters: Afterlife - Official International Trailer

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

You are so delusional…Trump policies lost jobs, the only president since WW2 to have lost jobs over their tenure.

When Trump took office in Jan. 2017, U.S. employment was at 145.6 million. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released its final jobs report before the Jan. 20 inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden. It shows in December there were 142.6 million employed Americans, down 3 million from Trump's own inauguration. Overall Trump had a -.5% job growth per year….absolutely disastrous….worst ever in living memory.

https://fortune.com/2021/01/11/us-economy-jobs-numbers-trump-compared-past-presidents-worst-record-since-hoover/

Please stop believing idiotic liars and grow up.

My portfolio has gone up over 25% since Biden took office, it lost around 8% in 4 years under Trump. It’s going to dip thanks to idiots ignoring public health and refusing vaccination, extending the pandemic indefinitely.

bobknight33 said:

What BS. Trump years made policies that created JOBS JOBS JOBS.

Please grow up.

Look around. Growth is still going well even with Biden in office. Its starting to dip a little but will be ok until Democrat policies mess it up

"The chicken goes"

ant says...

Please stop killing people, Death.

BSR said:

Do you not know what I do for a living?

Death is what I do for a living.

That's why I don't have a girlfriend.

-----------------------

Her: Do you love me?
Me: Someone would have to die to make me leave you.

Robot Chariot Racing Still Needs Work

Trump publicly blows his cover for national emergency

newtboy says...

Embedded swamp Trump. Yes, that sounds right.
Trump and his people have all been guilty of what he called swamp behavior to an extreme never seen in America, so many removed for abuse of office and theft, most while being praised by Trump. He didn't remove any for their crimes, he's only removed people for not properly kissing his ass and repeating his lies. Those removed for criminal malfeasance were often removed against his wishes and with his praise.

These are his people...the "individuates" he chose and hired. I agree he did the right thing firing most of those he did fire, but absolutely the wrong thing when he hired them and the wrong thing again with those he replaced them with who are usually worse....and worst of all he didn't remove the swamp monster in chief, you know, the one pumping stagnant feculant water into Washington by the metric ton.

No Bob, many were treasonous crimes, all were intentional crimes of moral turpitude. Hiding tens of millions paid to you by Russia and testifying you have no ties to them, that's not a process crime as you pretend, and was happening during and after his campaign and 100% for Trump's benefit.
Flynn, you can't trap someone who isn't committing a crime. They only trapped him into lying under oath about the crime he had already committed for Trump and at Trump's direction....subversion....when they already had proof he had done it. Duh.

How many of Trump's "best people" are convicted of being unreported foreign agents? How many in Obama's administration were?

Please stop spouting moronic lies, Dimitri, and give us back the Bob that knows English, please. When you start spouting clear insanity like this paired with losing your grasp of what you claim is your native language, we know another agent is posting as "Bob" today, and he's the one who's like an angry 6 year old trying to make political arguments with no knowledge whatsoever besides which party the players belong to.

bobknight33 said:

With all the leaking going and embedded swamp Trump in his administration Trump had done the right thing to fire/remove those individuates.

WRT Muller investigation. most process crimes and crimes that occurred before Trump or unrelated to Trump run for POTUS.


WRT to Michael Flynn,-- pure set up to entrap Flynn.

Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs

newtboy says...

Not by itself. Imo, Russia's backing had far more to do with him retaining power than his torturing.

Also, no one ignored that his changing methods (including aligning with a super power) were successful at retaining power for decades, please stop saying that. It's annoying and goes to show you aren't reading, you're apparently just looking for something to contradict and jumping on it.

None of your walls of text address the point being made, that torture is not an interrogation technique that works. Why do you continue to ignore the topic?

I'm bored with this merry go round....bye bye now.

bcglorf said:

You kind of noted it yourself, but Saddam DID use hope as well. He spent lots of money on the people that were loyal, obedient or just kept their heads down. You just can't ignore that his approach of giving the people the choice of a decent life if obedient or the risk of a horrific suffering one for disobedience secured him great power for multiple decades.

AOC Exposes The Dark Side - "Let's Play A Game"

enoch says...

this right here is what drives me absolutely bonkers.

you proceed from a false premise:
that "wealth" translates to being less corruptible.

blindly ignoring what wealth actual not only IS,but what it represents to the elite class in America.

power.

so could we please STOP with how much trump is actually worth,as if it has any inherent meaning in terms of power?


i do not understand wasting time with an ideologue,or dissecting his obviously conflicting comments as somehow expressing a clear and definable philosophy.these people play in the realm of cult of personality,spectacle and magical thinking.

their adoration for a particular public figure is cultish,and has very little to do with reality but more how their idol represents an ideal that they feel very strongly about.

so are we really surprised that bob will give Alexandria ocasio cortez a nod for exposing how easy it is to corrupt the system,but then conveniently excuse his idol and give him a pass based on the flimsiest of reasons:wealth.

when it was Alexandria ocasio cortez's lightning round that exposed how it is actually EASIER for the executive branch and the president to sell their influence for money.

but to bob,and how he sees things,the very idea that trump would ever engage in a breach of morality,and break his promise to the American people...is preposterous,...because trump already has money,why would he sell his integrity?

because BOB has integrity.
because BOB would never break a promise.
this is basic projection of ones morality onto a figure they admire.
we can apply the exact same metric to those who voted for Obama.same thing.same results.

you will never get bob to admonish his hero,because that hero represents the IDEA of what bob is projecting,not the actual reality.

fundamentalists engage in the exact same magical thinking.

so how can i get mad for bob,and the other trumpsters of the world?
i pity them.
because delusional dreams always crash on the shores of the real eventually.

and that is going to be a sad day for bob.

scheherazade said:

Bob said that her line of argument (selling regulation policy changes for self enrichment), is less of an obvious motivation for someone who enters politics already wealthy.

That's a perfectly fine statement to make, as there is less to gain.

-scheherazade

BACON CAUSES CANCER!!!! MCDONALDS IS GIVING FREE CANCER!

newtboy says...

It's not time you lack, I got an A in statistics which I took after advanced placement B/C calculus, thank you.
Please stop hyper exaggerating the danger of all animal products and the benefits of veganism.

No, we're acting like +1% lifetime risk of one type of cancer, from 5%-6%, is a totally acceptable level of risk to trade for a lifetime of pleasure when taken knowingly, and is a far cry from +18% every time you eat bacon. It's probably far less than the additional risk of drinking municipal water, or breathing anywhere East of the West coast, certainly exponentially less than breathing air in any major metropolitan area, or living within 25 miles of a military base or airport.

I'm also acting like people who lie about or misrepresent the stats only prove their position is untenable and that they're untrustworthy. If 1% total increased lifetime risk is enough to make your point, why erroneously claim +18% per serving? It makes it so easy to dismiss and overlook any real point you might have had.

Nothing is unanimous, and that goes double for nutritional advice. Somewhere there's a doctor that insists you can't possibly get enough nitrates, most would say if you're healthy go ahead and have some bacon...in moderation. My doctor and numerous documentaries say the stress of worrying incessantly about every little risk factor is a much bigger risk factor than almost any other for innumerable disorders and diseases. I'll take his advice, thanks.

transmorpher said:

I don't have time to teach you statistics. Stop trying to downplay the danger.

And for the third time, even if it is 1%, that's still millions of people suffering from colon cancer in the USA alone, but y'all are pretending like 1% is 0%.

Regardless of the numbers THE RECOMMENDATION IS UNANIMOUSLY DO NOT EAT. Very clear language that leaves no room for dispute.

Vicious Dog Pack Attack

transmorpher says...

Can we please stop breeding pets while there are so many dogs and cats that need homes?

Literally every time someone breeds a pet, another doggy or kitty who is perfectly healthy gets put down.

Judge Cristina Perez - Neighborhood Watch v HighSchool Kid

newtboy says...

Big surprise. Another totally fake racism story presented as truth.

God damn, @C-note, you're starting to convince even me that racism doesn't exist except in lies and stories, and I know better. Every time you spread a false story of racism or create one out of nothing (racist faucets) you let 5 real ones be ignored and dismissed. Please stop, or at least do minimum research before crying racism.
I chastise you because I believe racism is a problem....one I believe you are making worse with these easily *debunked posts.

eric3579 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_for_All_with_Judge_Cristina_Perez
Justice for All is a staged court show. At the end of the program, a standard disclaimer is shown which states that "All characters displayed are fictional and any resemblance to actual persons is coincidental."

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

harlequinn says...

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

newtboy said:

as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

Liberal Redneck - Muslim Ban

transmorpher says...

Those countries have had problems long before any western intervention.

Again, this is the left being dishonest. Please stop doing it, you're only making things worse for the refugees by fueling the far right.

There are actual muslims (such as Maajid Nawaz)that say islam has a problem(especially particular strands of it), and it needs reform. Embracing the muslims who want reform is the only way forward.

EDIT: Everything you've said has been rebutted by Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Hitchens and so on.

enoch said:

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon