Liberal Forum

ConsRule » 06 Feb 2024, 1:19 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 1:19 pm

How the **** do you know he wasn't? 

Really really simple rule of life, if it didn't evolve by periodic elements to erosion nor existed since conceived to replace ancestral lineages in this or any other atmosphere sustaining organic life, it didn't exist or happen in form or shape of occupying time when displaced as universally dispersed so far.

humans base times on how long it takes for this planet to revolve around the star studied intellectually to be around 5 billion times. That is a lot of time perpetual balancing moves things never duplicated again.

Human intellectual time only recorded history in the last 10,000 to 20,000 revolutions around the star.Current calendar is the Gregorian that is less than 500 years in use. Then there are longitudes and latitudes defining 24 hours a day on a rotating planet. with latitudes describing climate changes from either pole to equator being opposite seasons each rotation of the planet.

the human brain creates patterns of behavior according to hypothetical time frames so facts conjectured into trues don't reflect life actually evolving. just how humans evolved as ancestrally practiced every generation lived to date.

Now that leaves what makes people believe life is more than adapting to the moment here? Concepts of good and evil, ideas left and right, ancestral ;lineages numbers change stages of evolved so far being individually here, and then there is believers of life after death and those that won't accept intellectual life exceeds the time a person is adapting in space now.

History is recorded actions and reactions of people self governing by ideas homo sapiens are exempt from natural displacement as reproductively present.

There is a simple reason living is limited to those adapting in space here. reproduction changes population left alive now each ancestor that died or living.

ConsRule » 06 Feb 2024, 3:48 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:48 pm

There hasn't been anything en banc with this court yet.

He also has the right to pursue all legal measure during the appeals process, and that includes requesting an en banc hearing before he appeals to the Supreme Court.  Oh...and in case you forgot, the defendant can waive his right to a speedy trial.

Do you want to bet on the outcome?


He still can, but the trial will recommence.

Oh...and in case you forgot, the defendant can waive his right to a speedy trial.

Of course, but so what?



 

maineman » 06 Feb 2024, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 11:10 am

Let me ask you:  Trump's lawyers, when asked if he could be criminally charged with sending Seal Team SIx to assassinate his political rivals, responded that he would be liable for prosecution only if the House impeached, and the Senate convicted him of the articles of impeachment first.  There position is that a sitting president can do ANYTHING he wants to do, that he is literally above all criminal laws until the political impeachment process takes him off that high perch.  Does that make ANY sense to you?

So you're saying that ByeDUMB using the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT to persecute his POLITCAL RIVALS is perfectly legal and ByeDUMB has TOTAL IMMUNITY from PROSECUTION!!

See, this KICKING YOUR COWARD *** *** IS EASY!!!

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:51 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:51 pm

Do you want to bet on the outcome?

He still can, but the trial will recommence.

Of course, but so what?

The TRIAL will ONLY COMMENCE once ALL appeals have been exhausted and that means we will LIKELY have TRUMP AS PRESIDENT and this PERSECUTION KANGAROO COURT DISMANTLED!!

See, so easy to KICK YOUR FLAGILATED ***!!

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:34 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:34 pm

Yes...duty bound.....it's "obvious", isn't it?

Let your courage rise to the level of your humility.

Vanity Fair wont do **** without the threat of legal action, which I wouldn't pursue in the first place... so what's the point. They hate Trump.

I would be willing to bet that any inquiries would simply be ignored.

I've made my case here with photographic evidence and rational arguments... and you have only offered "blue eyes" and a caption from the Vanity Fair Society page.

If that were Trump in that picture, it would certainly be more prominently displayed across the Internet than just on the Vanity Fair Society page. Hell, other Vanity Fair stories about Cohn and Trump aren't even using the same picture.

The Vanity Fair Society page is literally the ONLY source on the entirety of the internet claiming that's Trump in that picture. That's it. NOBODY else is making the claim... except your dumb *** of course.

​​​​Not only is the guy your claiming to be Trump too short, his head is too small, and he looks nothing like Trump in the first place.

Just the facts ma'am.

 
 
 

RedheadedStranger » 06 Feb 2024, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:54 pm

Vanity Fair wont do **** without the threat of legal action, which I wouldn't pursue in the first place... so what's the point. They hate Trump.

I would be willing to bet that any inquiries would simply be ignored.

I've made my case here with photographic evidence and rational arguments... and you have only offered "blue eyes" and a caption from the Vanity Fair Society page.

If that were Trump in that picture, it would certainly be more prominently displayed across the Internet than just on the Vanity Fair Society page. Hell, other Vanity Fair stories about Cohn and Trump aren't even using the same picture.

The Vanity Fair Society page is literally the ONLY source on the entirety of the internet claiming that's Trump in that picture. That's it. NOBODY else is making the claim... except your dumb *** of course.

​​​​Not only is the guy your claiming to be Trump too short, his head is too small, and he looks nothing like Trump in the first place.

Just the facts ma'am.

No....that's ****.
.

You're thinking of **** like Gateway and FOX.

Go ahead and contact them. Offer them the evidence (perhaps your eyes, neatly wrapped), and demand a retraction.


 

R. Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:51 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:51 pm

Do you want to bet on the outcome?


He still can, but the trial will recommence.


Of course, but so what?



 

Manmade circumstances mankind ignoring the circumstance of adapting as displaced in a body that is an ever changing form since arriving a fertilized cell that arrived by merging two reproductive cells of the persons added the conception.
Naturally or technologically as mankind plays creator of all things believed possible...

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:46 pm

Since you made your vision thing the issue....

Describe what you see


 

 

The projected track of a hurricane 7 or 8 days before landfall.

Acknowledge you have been answered, again.  And for free. 

Beekeeper » 06 Feb 2024, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:53 pm

The TRIAL will ONLY COMMENCE once ALL appeals have been exhausted and that means we will LIKELY have TRUMP AS PRESIDENT and this PERSECUTION KANGAROO COURT DISMANTLED!!

See, so easy to KICK YOUR FLAGILATED ***!!

No....you don't know what you are talking about.

Until there is a verdict, the only grounds on which Grifty could appeal are the ones he is now exhausting.

**** idiot.
 

maineman » 06 Feb 2024, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:42 pm

How many dictators signaled their intention to become one in advance?

 

I know of one who has a track record with no "dictator like" policies as president and who jokingly said that on the first day of a possible 2nd term he would act like a dictator on TWO issues.  The border and drilling.

Other than that I don't know of any.

Acknowledge you were answered.....

Huey » 06 Feb 2024, 3:58 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:58 pm

The projected track of a hurricane 7 or 8 days before landfall.

Acknowledge you have been answered, again.  And for free.

Anyone on whose vision thing I would rely would exclaim

"Holy ****! Is that a Sharpie edit?"

 

maineman » 06 Feb 2024, 3:40 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:40 pm

Proclaiming his intent to become one is a pretty good indicator.  I do not intend to give him the benefit of the doubt given the fate of our democracy may very well hang in the balance.

We will go with this comment again:

I know of one who has a track record with no "dictator like" policies as president and who jokingly said that on the first day of a possible 2nd term he would act like a dictator on TWO issues.  The border and drilling.

You gotta stop listening to Crazy Joe and Hilary.  
 

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 4:02 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 4:02 pm

Anyone on whose vision thing I would rely would exclaim

"Holy ****! Is that a Sharpie edit?"

 

 

   

Huey » 06 Feb 2024, 4:03 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 4:03 pm

 

The point being that no one needs to be guided by what you claim not to see.

Huey » 06 Feb 2024, 4:03 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 4:03 pm

We will go with this comment again:

I know of one who has a track record with no "dictator like" policies as president and who jokingly said that on the first day of a possible 2nd term he would act like a dictator on TWO issues.  The border and drilling.

You gotta stop listening to Crazy Joe and Hilary.

Why?

You've lost this argument.
 

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 4:06 pm

Why?

You've lost this argument.
 

 

1.  I debunked the "dictator" comment.

2.  You have not shown a policy that is "dictator like".

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 4:06 pm

The point being that no one needs to be guided by what you claim not to see.

I did not claim not to see it.  That is a lie.  It is a NOAA National Hurricane map of the projected track of a hurricane 7 or 8 days from landfall.  Apparently you can't see the forest for the trees.  

 

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:57 pm

No....that's ****.
.

You're thinking of **** like Gateway and FOX.

Go ahead and contact them. Offer them the evidence (perhaps your eyes, neatly wrapped), and demand a retraction.

Can you explain why literally no other source on the entirety of the Internet is saying that's Trump in that picture?

Not a SINGLE one exists.

With all of the ire and hatred aimed at Donald Trump by the media, don't you think that this damning picture of Trump dressed as a Studio 54 party boy wouldn't be plastered all over the internet instead of ONLY being featured once on the Vanity Fair Society page?

If you can find another source making the same claim, I'll shut up... just one. Just one other source.

Until then I'm calling **** and you an idiot for falling for it.

 

​​
 

RedheadedStranger » 06 Feb 2024, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 4:12 pm

Can you explain why literally no other source on the entirety of the Internet is saying that's Trump in that picture?

Not a SINGLE one exists.

With all of the ire and hatred aimed at Donald Trump by the media, don't you think that this damning picture of Trump dressed as a Studio 54 party boy wouldn't be plastered all over the internet instead of ONLY being featured on the Vanity Fair Society page?

If you can find another source making the same claim, I'll shut up... just one. Just one other source.

Until then I'm calling **** and you an idiot for falling for it.

 

​​

Why are you still going on?

I don't believe your eyes, but VF might..

Would you like me to proofread your submission?
 

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 4:14 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 4:14 pm

Why are you still going on?

I don't believe your eyes, but VF might..

Would you like me to proofread your submission?

So, you can't find one... not a single other source to back up the claim.

I accept your concession.

You've been duped, and apparently you liked it.