PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on August 24, 2024, 07:44:41 PM
-
biden appointed scumbag royce lamberth sentenced innocent young man to three years for standing quietly noon Capitol steps during J6 protest. This pig of a judge has made a name for himself persecuting conservatives for being conservative.
Fuck that fucking scumbag. He needs to spend the rest of his pathetic, useless life behind bars for his crimes against the American People and our constitution.
Fuck biden.
Fuck that fucking whore harris.
And fuck royce fucking lamberth.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/j6-mother-fights-her-sons-freedom-isaac-sturgeon/
-
Did I miss the video of the son? What I don't like is the use of the terms corrupt judge, etc. in the article.
-
Fucking corrupt judge would be a better description, but corrupt is fine for mixed company.
-
Did I miss the video of the son? What I don't like is the use of the terms corrupt judge, etc. in the article.
I have no problem with that. The plea deal for these J6ers is to renounce Donald Trump, “confess” they were trying to “overthrow” the 2020 election and so on. This guy and others refused to take that deal, unlike many other erstwhile Trump supporters *ahem Jenna Ellis* who took a deal which apparently includes never again publicly supporting Trump.
I’d call any judge allowing plea deals like that corrupt.
-
I have no problem with that. The plea deal for these J6ers is to renounce Donald Trump, “confess” they were trying to “overthrow” the 2020 election and so on. This guy and others refused to take that deal, unlike many other erstwhile Trump supporters *ahem Jenna Ellis* who took a deal which apparently includes never again publicly supporting Trump.
I’d call any judge allowing plea deals like that corrupt.
Provide those kind of details in the article and let me decide.
-
Provide those kind of details in the article and let me decide.
I agree with that. It bugs me when articles lack the depth and nuance needed to know what’s really going on. Or back up accusations like “the judge is corrupt”. This occurs on both the right and left. I am pulling up what I said from memory of having seen several sources in the past of which I’m not going to try to chase down again.
In this case “the judge is corrupt” is an inference. In my opinion it is likely the judge is heavily biased which alone might not be technical corruption but I believe it is highly likely he benefits financially within the DC swamp for his loyalty to it.
This particular judge presided over a lot of the j6 cases and upheld the establishment narrative. He’s the one that sentenced the Buffalo hat guy to several years in prison.
He said: “In my thirty-seven years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream,” Lamberth lamented in a seven-page public court filing.
Was he under a rock in the summer of 2020?!
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/25/judge-lamberth-jan-6-trump-00137960
I don’t believe the OP’s referenced article even mentions the judge by name, yet accuses him of being corrupt. So yes I take issue with that.
-
I don't think we have to be like them. I'm currently in a pissing contest on FB about the "Democrats are going to tax unrealized capital gains". I simply pointed out that the current proposal only targets those with incomes over $100m, which is the truth as we currently know it. Other believe it is much better to just scare the bejesus out of everyone by leaving that part out.
I''ve told them that I understand ti could be a slippery slope thing and could change over time, that does not change the current facts. There is nothing wrong with stating the facts as they exist and adding in the possibility.probability that the parameters could change.
Bongino likes to throw this around without the qualification and I disagree with him doing that. I actually wonder how successful they would be in trying to do that? How many people would vote for someone that told you flat out that they want to tax you right now on the unrealized gain on your house. There are not many of us that are not sitting on a big number. My number is currently around $220k. If you tax me 25% on that, I will not be able to pay it, period.
-
I don't think we have to be like them. I'm currently in a pissing contest on FB about the "Democrats are going to tax unrealized capital gains". I simply pointed out that the current proposal only targets those with incomes over $100m, which is the truth as we currently know it. Other believe it is much better to just scare the bejesus out of everyone by leaving that part out.
I''ve told them that I understand ti could be a slippery slope thing and could change over time, that does not change the current facts. There is nothing wrong with stating the facts as they exist and adding in the possibility.probability that the parameters could change.
Bongino likes to throw this around without the qualification and I disagree with him doing that. I actually wonder how successful they would be in trying to do that? How many people would vote for someone that told you flat out that they want to tax you right now on the unrealized gain on your house. There are not many of us that are not sitting on a big number. My number is currently around $220k. If you tax me 25% on that, I will not be able to pay it, period.
If we had to pay that, we would have to take it out of IRAs and pay tax on the distribution which would mean paying tax on the money used to pay a tax.
-
If we had to pay that, we would have to take it out of IRAs and pay tax on the distribution which would mean paying tax on the money used to pay a tax.
And that wouldn’t bother the “elites” at all!
-
Problem is, when they propose a new "tax" it's always on someone else (millionaires, etc). That's the camel getting his nose under the tent.
It doesn't take long for the threshold to be lowered and now everyone is being caught in the new tax web.
When the 16th amendment was ratified in 1913, the top tax bracket was 7 percent on all income over $500,000 ($11 million in today’s dollars); and the lowest tax bracket was 1 percent.
Look at where we are now.
-
Problem is, when they propose a new "tax" it's always on someone else (millionaires, etc). That's the camel getting his nose under the tent.
It doesn't take long for the threshold to be lowered and now everyone is being caught in the new tax web.
When the 16th amendment was ratified in 1913, the top tax bracket was 7 percent on all income over $500,000 ($11 million in today’s dollars); and the lowest tax bracket was 1 percent.
Look at where we are now.
I understand all that. The issue still is, tell the truth instead of just using fear tactics. Are we to the point where we don't think folks are capable of figuring this stuff out on their own? I care enough to think folks are a bit more intelligent than that. As it is, if they implement it as is we might see investor pull backs from the market or a drop in home sales along the way, unintended consequences and all.
-
I understand all that. The issue still is, tell the truth instead of just using fear tactics. Are we to the point where we don't think folks are capable of figuring this stuff out on their own? I care enough to think folks are a bit more intelligent than that. As it is, if they implement it as is we might see investor pull backs from the market or a drop in home sales along the way, unintended consequences and all.
It's all politics.
-
I just can’t believe there are intelligent people who will vote for Kamala.
-
I just can’t believe there are brain-washed people who will vote for Kamala.
FTFY
-
I just can’t believe there are intelligent people who will vote for Kamala.
There aren’t.
-
There aren’t.
What prompted that post was Bill Maher’s Club Random podcast with Quentin Tarantino. Both of them have to be highly intelligent but also completely steeped in celebrity culture and suffering from terminal TDS. Some portion of their brains must be deeply stupid and irrevocably damaged, preventing them from seeing things like Kamala’s obvious Marxism. Maher at least, has often spoken passionately against communism so his voting for Kamala, which he says he will do, is utter cognitive dissonance. He sees it as lesser of two evils, because according to him, MAGA is an existential threat and Trump will make himself dictator for life if he gets in office. Gets in office again, I might add - Maher doesn’t explain why, if his fear is true, Trump didn’t do that in his first term.
-
Maher doesn’t explain why, if his fear is true, Trump didn’t do that in his first term.
He tried, and thousands died at the capitol riots.
I've asked several friends and relatives why they hate Trump. "Mean tweets" and repeating MSM-generated lies is all they have.
-
The current democrat strategy is to make it appear Trump as the incumbent president and everything bad (economy, border, wars) are his fault. The low information types are buying it.
The Cackler will fix it, she just won't say how until after the election. Can't make this shit up.
-
He tried, and thousands died at the capitol riots.
I've asked several friends and relatives why they hate Trump. "Mean tweets" and repeating MSM-generated lies is all they have.
Right. When Maher is asked why he hates Trump he always says “Because he didn’t accept the election results.” Never, not once, has he talked about Trump’s policies as a reason. Maybe he has on his Real Time show but I don’t watch that. It’s his Club Random where he opens up in more depth about his thoughts that he says that. One thing is certain, he is really becoming anti-woke and anti-far left, but his hatred for Trump overrides that. He will continue to vote for the party taken over by the far left and woke, that’s how much he hates Trump. That’s not going to change, he’s so brainwashed.
-
The question that I've never heard asked: When there are severe doubts about the fairness of an election, should one just sit back and take it or stop the process and determine if it was fair or not? Trump tried to LEGALLY stop the process. The riots were just people frustrated with their government and doing something that really would have no effect on anything. They could not stop the process. They could not "overthrow the government". The 2020 election was unique in our history and there is a lot of evidence that there was widespread cheating. Judges changing rules that should only be changed by state representatives and on and on.
Contrast that with the 2016 election where the election was the same as every other. Hillary refused to accept the results. How may times have we heard the left bleat that Trump is "not my president"? That he is "illegitimate"? That he "stole the election"? The difference is that the 2016 riots were not at the capitol. They were just the left doing what the left does. And the burning was "mostly peaceful".
-
The question that I've never heard asked: When there are severe doubts about the fairness of an election, should one just sit back and take it or stop the process and determine if it was fair or not? Trump tried to LEGALLY stop the process. The riots were just people frustrated with their government and doing something that really would have no effect on anything. They could not stop the process. They could not "overthrow the government". The 2020 election was unique in our history and there is a lot of evidence that there was widespread cheating. Judges changing rules that should only be changed by state representatives and on and on.
Contrast that with the 2016 election where the election was the same as every other. Hillary refused to accept the results. How may times have we heard the left bleat that Trump is "not my president"? That he is "illegitimate"? That he "stole the election"? The difference is that the 2016 riots were not at the capitol. They were just the left doing what the left does. And the burning was "mostly peaceful".
Have we ever had a point in history where the lawyers of a political opponent were systematically targeted, had their law licenses revoked or were charged with made up “crimes” just for representing their client? It’s happening to the lawyers who tried to gather evidence to support Trump’s claims of election fraud.
So not only do they refuse to admit to cheating, they persecute lawyers attempting to uncover facts. This is not only a coverup of their fraud but an extremely dangerous precedent for our entire legal system. Our constitutional right to fair representation is compromised.
-
I fear that the next six months are going to be truly horrible. To maintain my sanity I think I'll have to put on a total news blackout (except for here!). It's exhausting to see or hear something, check the source, and check the context to see what's really going on. I think the best advice is given by Edgar Allan Poe, in a short story set in a mental hospital:
“You are young yet, my friend,” replied my host, “but the time will arrive when you will learn to judge for yourself of what is going on in the world, without trusting to the gossip of others. Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see."
A mental hospital run by the patients is the best way to describe the world today.
-
The question that I've never heard asked: When there are severe doubts about the fairness of an election, should one just sit back and take it or stop the process and determine if it was fair or not?
I have asked that question many times, although perhaps not here.
Liberals never have a satisfactory answer to the question "What should one do if they honestly feel an election was stolen and those in charge refuse to listen"?
-
Hypocrisy thy name is Democrat.
-
I have asked that question many times, although perhaps not here.
Liberals never have a satisfactory answer to the question "What should one do if they honestly feel an election was stolen and those in charge refuse to listen"?
The media, and places like Wikipedia which are SUPPOSED to be trustworthy sources of facts, repeatedly talk about "false claims of election fraud".
NOTHING WAS EVER PROVEN FALSE!!! Nothing was proven or disproven, the claims were all thrown out of court without trial, or failed to be investigated, or evidence was "lost" or destroyed, etc. If we cannot prove the election was stolen, we damn sure cannot prove it was completely secure and there was no fraud. Yet that's what they claim... pure gaslighting.
-
I fear that the next six months are going to be truly horrible. To maintain my sanity I think I'll have to put on a total news blackout (except for here!). It's exhausting to see or hear something, check the source, and check the context to see what's really going on. I think the best advice is given by Edgar Allan Poe, in a short story set in a mental hospital:
“You are young yet, my friend,” replied my host, “but the time will arrive when you will learn to judge for yourself of what is going on in the world, without trusting to the gossip of others. Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see."
A mental hospital run by the patients is the best way to describe the world today.
Me too, I think I need to step away from all of this.
-
I think it will take a state seceding for the ignorant left to realize they have broken America with their insanity, egos, idiocy and parasitism.
Once a state leaves the union others will follow. The slave states will begin to implode because free states will stop providing for them.
Human sewage like schumer, pelosi, romney, and the rest will find no one listening they bitch and blather their bullshit. CNN and the other 24 hour all-lies networks will go under, and America will cease to be recognizable as a union of states.
-
Where in the Constitution is the process for secession?
-
Where in the Constitution is the process for secession?
I thought the Constitution limited the government, not the states. Anyway, seceding is not prohibited in the constitution.
-
I thought the Constitution limited the government, not the states. Anyway, seceding is not prohibited in the constitution.
So, what is the process?
-
So, what is the process?
States vote to succeed. The fucking twats will whine like the little bitches they are and the courts will try to make shit up and call it law.
Then they will vote again and succeed.
-
dang autocorrect...
-
So, what is the process?
There is no process for secession in the Constitution. Neither does it say they can’t. The argument that states can’t secede is justified by the 1868 Supreme Court decision in Texas vs White, which unconstitutionally gave the federal government power to force states to stay, in direct opposition to the Constitution making government subject to the People. The decision turned that on its head. But they did state the process by which a state could secede, which is one of two ways: revolution or by the consent of all the other States.
The decision was ridiculous and self contradictory. As proven by the Civil War, revolution didn’t work, and getting the consent of the other States still leaves you with the problem of the tyranny of the federal apparatus. The court in the same opinion claimed that “to make a more perfect Union” means indissoluble which is to ascribe features to it that don’t exist in the Constitution.
Besides, since when have SCOTUS rulings been permanently accepted as settled law, much less been attached to the Constitution like an Amendment. We just reversed RvW. The Court interprets the Constitution and those interpretations are literally understood and labeled as: Opinions.
And we all know what opinions are.
-
There aren’t.
Yes, they are in certain ways. In my area these political idiots drive a Mercedes, BMW, Tesla or large, gas guzzling, expensive SUV yet put Biden/Harris and "Hate has no Home Here" signs on their lawns. They have the intelligence to have good, very well-paying jobs and careers. Yet can't see the forest from the trees. Most of the Men just do what their wives tell them to do and live in fear of them. They're women with male parts.