Liberal Forum

Huey » 18 Apr 2024, 8:59 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 8:59 am

So....

Spot the moss.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 8:47 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 8:47 am

It is about falsifying business records, which in itself is a felony.

No it is NOT!!!  It is about the persecution of braindead biden's political opponent (Trump) to prevent him from running against braindead biden!!!
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 8:25 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 8:25 am

It may be so in the context of a presidential election.

But why disparage her? She declined his offer of payment after the encounter....

Which occurred 4 months after the birth of the Rapist's most recent anchor baby.

The whore and Avenatti were engaged in Extortion .....of a Presidential candidate ......
Period.
Extortion is a crime ....

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 8:47 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 8:47 am

It is about falsifying business records, which in itself is a felony.

 

A federal statute that not only did the DOJ pass on but the statute of limitations has passed.  The FEC passed on it.  Bragg originally passed on it.  So ya, you got a witch hunt.  

Huey » 18 Apr 2024, 9:09 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 9:09 am

A federal statute that not only did the DOJ pass on but the statute of limitations has passed.  The FEC passed on it.  Bragg originally passed on it.  So ya, you got a witch hunt.

It's not as if taking the word of your Influencers on legal matters has hurt you much in the past.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 6:32 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 6:32 am

Republicans say the quick dismissal of charges against Alejandro Mayorkas sets a dangerous precedent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/p ... edent.html

No thoughts..etc...copy/paste. 

So, back to your stupidity. Now, you have said a lot of stupid **** here. I mean a lot. But yesterday's gem easily takes the top. No question. 

I have to ask if you had some bad weed or something?

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 9:23 am

No thoughts..etc...copy/paste. 

So, back to your stupidity. Now, you have said a lot of stupid **** here. I mean a lot. But yesterday's gem easily takes the top. No question. 

I have to ask if you had some bad weed or something?

It's not bad weed that's the problem... it's that it's really really good that's the problem.

LOL
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 6:32 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 6:32 am

Republicans say the quick dismissal of charges against Alejandro Mayorkas sets a dangerous precedent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/p ... edent.html

It had to be the weed. 

So, wherever you got your stash, you should go back and demand a refund. And God knows how good you are at making demands. When they ask for proof of the low quality, show them this: 

R.Suave » Yesterday, 6:15 pm » wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:15 pm

Sure...

But I will determine if I've satisfied the standard of evidence..

Shouldn't be an issue if you can be the judge of what defines "Survivorship bias".

My judgement is final.

Let's begin.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 9:22 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 9:22 am

It's not as if taking the word of your Influencers on legal matters has hurt you much in the past.

 

Well, you are invited to use citations to prove me wrong.

Huey » 18 Apr 2024, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 9:31 am

Well, you are invited to use citations to prove me wrong.

He'll demand you use them you use them to make your case... even when you already have.

 
 

Huey » 18 Apr 2024, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 9:31 am

Well, you are invited to use citations to prove me wrong.

Did you use citations, or just assert?

Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 9:23 am

No thoughts..etc...copy/paste. 

So, back to your stupidity. Now, you have said a lot of stupid **** here. I mean a lot. But yesterday's gem easily takes the top. No question. 

I have to ask if you had some bad weed or something?

Then your judgement of my definition of Survivorship bias is voided, and you owe me an example...

**** idiot.
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 6:32 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 6:32 am

Republicans say the quick dismissal of charges against Alejandro Mayorkas sets a dangerous precedent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/p ... edent.html

Looks like the [[[Kosher Mafia]]] held the line.
Now we've got 1000s of 70 IQ Haitians swarming in too.
Those of you who live in 99% White communities...if you notice a few new  Black faces walking the streets they might be newly arrived Haitians,  care of the  [[[JWO]]] Diversity & Inclusion Program.

 

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 9:34 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 9:34 am

He'll demand you use them you use them to make your case... even when you already have.

viewtopic.php?p=2533407#p2533407


list the citations in that post.


**** idiot.

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 9:52 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 9:52 am

viewtopic.php?p=2533407#p2533407

list the citations in that post.

**** idiot.

Did I say there were?

I was referring to my own personal experience with your dumb ***.

 
 
 

*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 9:56 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 9:56 am

Did I say there were?

I was referring to my own personal experience with your dumb ***.

He'll demand you use them you use them to make your case... even when you already have

can you cite an example?

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 9:48 am

Did you use citations, or just assert?

https://apnews.com/article/trump-indict ... 36e49cfccc

As far as the DoJ, you don't need a link to know they did prosecute him.Alvin Bragg Not Indicting Donald Trump 'Shameful'—Legal Experts

In Pomerantz's resignation letter, obtained by The New York Times, the prosecutor criticized Bragg's decision to not push forward with the probe against Trump and feared that the DA's hesitation will "doom any future prospects" of prosecuting the former president for crimes he is alleged to have committed.

https://www.newsweek.com/alvin-bragg-in ... er-1691276

Your turn.  You are here discussing politics and current events but you are so ignorant of the facts.

Huey » 18 Apr 2024, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:00 am

https://apnews.com/article/trump-indict ... 36e49cfccc

As far as the DoJ, you don't need a link to know they did prosecute him.Alvin Bragg Not Indicting Donald Trump 'Shameful'—Legal Experts

In Pomerantz's resignation letter, obtained by The New York Times, the prosecutor criticized Bragg's decision to not push forward with the probe against Trump and feared that the DA's hesitation will "doom any future prospects" of prosecuting the former president for crimes he is alleged to have committed.

https://www.newsweek.com/alvin-bragg-in ... er-1691276

Your turn.  You are here discussing politics and current events but you are so ignorant of the facts.

I don't see your assertions supported by the results of your random googling.

But then, I read it.
 
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 10:00 am

can you cite an example?

And again, you ask for something that already been provided... this time less than two hours ago.

You need to leave that **** alone Snave... it's destroying your short term memory.

Oh, and Huey was spot on correct too.

https://reason.com/2024/04/15/alvin-bra ... 20services.

Don't ask me to post it again in an hour.

If you forget this time, too bad.

LOL

 
 

R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 9:50 am » wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2024, 9:50 am

Then your judgement of my definition of Survivorship bias is voided,

How so? 

and you owe me an example...

STFU! Nobody owes you a **** thing.