And just like that…

[jakee 1,569]

  On 11/13/2024 at 11:19 PM, metalslug said:

We're back to subjective argument here. Yes, I will decide that as opinion on balance of probability, as we both may decide that Southern states had similar cases or that you may decide that "CRT is right".

Right, so when you said you’d be appalled if he pardoned anyone with airtight convictions that was bullshit - your opinion will be that anyone who is pardoned deserved to be pardoned and you won’t bother to check. 

And if anyone takes the time to show you proof, as with the Putin discussion earlier, that will be the exact moment you lose interest in the conversation instead of changing your mind.

[metalslug 36]

  On 11/14/2024 at 7:27 AM, jakee said:

Right, so when you said you’d be appalled if he pardoned anyone with airtight convictions that was bullshit - your opinion will be that anyone who is pardoned deserved to be pardoned and you won’t bother to check. 

Deserved "on balance of probability". Where and how do you suppose I could check the minutia of those cases in any way more thoroughly than the team appointed to do so (for purposes of pardon)? ...by rather deferring to the word of The Right Hon. Lord jakee who has a demonstrated history of bullshit here? 

I'll offer a concession; some of the events of Jan 6 were captured clearly on camera of specific individuals assaulting security officers and/or vandalising property as a matter of public record, with no plausible mitigating circumstances. If he pardons one of them, I'll assert my objection to it.

Edited November 14, 2024 by metalslug

[jakee 1,569]

  On 11/14/2024 at 12:27 PM, metalslug said:

Deserved "on balance of probability". Where and how do you suppose I could check the minutia of those cases in any way more thoroughly than the team appointed to do so (for purposes of pardon)? ...

So let’s get this straight - you believe the justice system, who need to have a strong enough case to convince a jury, have been unfairly prosecuting people who didn’t trespass in the Capitol on Jan 6th because that’s what everyone system inhabited by political people does.

You equally believe that the President, who has unilateral pardon power, has called Jan 6th criminals political prisoners, who has promised to pardon them, who plays their music at his rallies, will ensure that a dedicated impartial team forensically reexamines every minute detail of every Jan 6th case before he makes a decision, and will only pardon those who really should not have been found guilty according to the law as it exists?

Im sorry to mix metaphors but did you notice the sides of the rabbit hole coming up past your ears or was this more of a boiling a frog situation?

  On 11/14/2024 at 12:27 PM, metalslug said:

I'll offer a concession; some of the events of Jan 6 were captured clearly on camera of specific individuals assaulting security officers and/or vandalising property as a matter of public record, with no plausible mitigating circumstances. If he pardons one of them, I'll assert my objection to it.

Putin’s speech was recorded and you still won’t admit to misrepresenting that, so I’m not going to hold my breath.

[metalslug 36]

  On 11/14/2024 at 1:12 PM, jakee said:

So let’s get this straight - you believe the justice system, who need to have a strong enough case to convince a jury...

Perhaps the same standard presented to jurors who convicted people of colour in the Southern states? Would that work for you?

  On 11/14/2024 at 1:12 PM, jakee said:

Putin’s speech was recorded and you still won’t admit to misrepresenting that, so I’m not going to hold my breath.

This from the guy who, in that very same thread, affirmed this statement three times; "Convincing people that reality is not what it is does mean that you have changed reality into what you say it is."  And you wonder why I lose interest in your debates.

[nigel99 584]

  On 11/14/2024 at 1:48 PM, metalslug said:

Perhaps the same standard presented to jurors who convicted people of colour in the Southern states? Would that work for you?

This from the guy who, in that very same thread, affirmed this statement three times; "Convincing people that reality is not what it is does mean that you have changed reality into what you say it is."  And you wonder why I lose interest in your debates.

I thought prior to Trump most pardons were for some of the insane US sentencing practices. Like over 10 years for a bit of pot? 

If that is the case I can see high numbers of pardons. 

The US has a two tier justice system. I think TK and I bumped heads over this about 6 months ago. When the rich and famous like Trump get away with crimes, you don’t have a functional justice system that is ‘the envy of the world’

[jakee 1,569]

  On 11/14/2024 at 1:48 PM, metalslug said:

Perhaps the same standard presented to jurors who convicted people of colour in the Southern states? Would that work for you?

Perhaps, though I would have more faith in the overall level of professionalism in federal law enforcement than across all dfferent levels and outposts of local law enforcement - even more so in politically charged cases where they know their work will be scrutinised.

Now try this - if Harris had been elected and said all black prisoners in the south were victims of racism, that they were all political prisoners and that she would pardon them all - would you be standing here saying you were sure she was going to setup a commission to scrutinise every detail of every case before making a decision and you would never be able to second guess their decisions?

  Quote

This from the guy who, in that very same thread, affirmed this statement threetimes; "Convincing people that reality is not what it is does mean that you have changed reality into what you say it is."  And you wonder why I lose interest in your debates.

Indeed - I made a mistake, and as soon as I realised it I said I'd made a mistake. By contrast, when provided with proof that you were misquoting Putin to support your argument you did not admit that you were doing so - you suddenly "lost interest" instead. Sure thing buddy, someone out there believes you.

Edited November 14, 2024 by jakee

[gowlerk 2,259]

  On 11/14/2024 at 6:17 PM, jakee said:

 

Indeed - I made a mistake, and as soon as I realised it I said I'd made a mistake. By contrast, when provided with proof that you were misquoting Putin to support your argument you did not admit that you were doing so - you suddenly "lost interest" instead. Sure thing buddy, someone out there believes you.

Isn't this a tactic of Trump's? Never admit a mistake.

[metalslug 36]

  On 11/14/2024 at 6:17 PM, jakee said:

Now try this - if Harris had been elected and said all black prisoners in the south were victims of racism, that they were all political prisoners and that she would pardon them all - would you be standing here saying you were sure she was going to setup a commission to scrutinise every detail of every case before making a decision and you would never be able to second guess their decisions?

?? If she was intent on pardoning all of them and had not expressly stated (either personally or via a spokesperson) that such a commission would exist then I should indeed assume there's no commission at all, which is not what Trumps's team said regarding their intended process.  Beyond that; the strawman scope of pardons that you describe above would go down so well with the electorate majority so as to ensure Republican victories for the next 20 years or more. I doubt she would gift them that circumstance.

[jakee 1,569]

  On 11/14/2024 at 10:27 PM, metalslug said:

?? If she was intent on pardoning all of them and had not expressly stated (either personally or via a spokesperson) that such a commission would exist then I should indeed assume there's no commission at all, which is not what Trumps's team said regarding their intended process. 

What did they say about a process? 

All Trump has said is that he'll pardon everyone except a few people who 'got out of control'. He hasn't said anything at all about double checking who broke the law.

I do notice that you're dodging explaining why you would believe the results of such a partisan controlled process (if indeed there would be one at all) as intently as you're dodging acknowledging that you were wrong about Putin's speech. 

[metalslug 36]

  On 11/14/2024 at 6:17 PM, jakee said:

Indeed - I made a mistake, and as soon as I realised it I said I'd made a mistake. By contrast, when provided with proof that you were misquoting Putin to support your argument you did not admit that you were doing so - you suddenly "lost interest" instead. Sure thing buddy, someone out there believes you.

This quoted media statement, as I wrote it, is indeed true; “We have come to a dangerous line,” Putin told the Valdai discussion club in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, a day after learning that Donald Trump had won the US presidential election."  Putin did say that during the indicated timing although I will concede that the sentiment of "dangerous" cannot exclusively be tied to animosity against Trump and I'll further concede that the term "liberal" was indeed used in an earlier part of that speech. 

It has long been a favourite accusation from the left that Trump and Putin are "thick as thieves", conspiring in elections and laptops and whatever other scare narrative might hit home when there was in truth much more actual evidence, and subsequent FEC fines, that Democrats were conspiring with Russian sources.  It's also true that for Trump to meet his election promise of "ending the war" will inevitably mean that Putin gets a win, although with the alternative being a never-ending river of US money pouring into that war, Trump appears to be seeking a pragmatic outcome to a war that started on Biden's watch. I don't hear the left railing against Europe and rest of NATO for not throwing their own billions into that war. It's more convenient to blame your domestic political enemy.

[nigel99 584]

  On 11/14/2024 at 11:08 PM, jakee said:

What did they say about a process? 

All Trump has said is that he'll pardon everyone except a few people who 'got out of control'. He hasn't said anything at all about double checking who broke the law.

I do notice that you're dodging explaining why you would believe the results of such a partisan controlled process (if indeed there would be one at all) as intently as you're dodging acknowledging that you were wrong about Putin's speech. 

There is a process that Trump has in mind. It’s beautifully simple and straight out of the Department of Gov Efficiency 

[jakee 1,569]

  On 11/14/2024 at 11:12 PM, metalslug said:

This quoted media statement, as I wrote it, is indeed true; “We have come to a dangerous line,” Putin told the Valdai discussion club in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, a day after learning that Donald Trump had won the US presidential election."  Putin did say that during the indicated timing although I will concede that the sentiment of "dangerous" cannot exclusively be tied to animosity against Trump and I'll further concede that the term "liberal" was indeed used in an earlier part of that speech. 

You mean the sentiment of dangerous did not apply at all to Trump, "liberal" was used in that exact part of the speech, and when you said "they sound like best mates" Putin did indeed say very nice things about him.

  Quote

I don't hear the left railing against Europe and rest of NATO for not throwing their own billions into that war. It's more convenient to blame your domestic political enemy.

Why would they? That would also not be true. Apart from France - relative to military/economy size they've been totally useless.

Edited November 15, 2024 by jakee

[nigel99 584]

What a great shirt!

[sundevil777 102]

  On 11/10/2024 at 2:11 PM, gowlerk said:

I’m waiting to see how many pardons are handed out to in January 6th insurrectionists.

You don't think prosecutorial abuse happened? 

[jakee 1,569]

  On 11/16/2024 at 4:26 AM, sundevil777 said:

You don't think prosecutorial abuse happened? 

Give us an example.

[JerryBaumchen 1,451]

  On 11/16/2024 at 4:26 AM, sundevil777 said:

You don't think prosecutorial abuse happened? 

Hi Cliff,

The very definition of 'prosecutorial abuse' is subjective.

Jerry Baumchen

[normiss 868]

  On 11/16/2024 at 4:26 AM, sundevil777 said:

You don't think prosecutorial abuse happened? 

That's funny right there.

[billvon 3,088]

  On 11/16/2024 at 4:26 AM, sundevil777 said:

You don't think prosecutorial abuse happened? 

You can assert that without evidence.  Can therefore be dismissed without evidence.

[dgw 8]

  On 11/18/2024 at 4:30 PM, billvon said:

You can assert that without evidence.  Can therefore be dismissed without evidence.

I’m not sure who first coined this phrase / point of logic, but I’ve only hitherto heard the late Christopher Hitchens use it in his relentless campaign against irrational religion. 
 

Nice to see it enter the main stream media. It is an unarguable observation imo. 

[metalslug 36]

And just like that... 

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring, just a few days after the other Joe (wearing his November 2020 smile) invited Trump to the White House.  Who would have guessed they would warm up to a nazi so fast?  Anthony Rota did not fare as well.

[jakee 1,569]

  On 11/19/2024 at 9:03 AM, metalslug said:

And just like that... 

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring, just a few days after the other Joe (wearing his November 2020 smile) invited Trump to the White House.  Who would have guessed they would warm up to a nazi so fast?

Were they as friendly to him as Putin was in the speech you were so keen to highlight?

[metalslug 36]

  On 11/19/2024 at 11:54 AM, jakee said:

Were they as friendly to him as Putin was in the speech you were so keen to highlight?

?? How could we possibly know that answer? Have the full transcripts of those meetings with Trump been publicly shared?

[wmw999 2,558]

It’s Biden’s JOB to be polite. It’s another thing Trump was incapable of completing when he was the outgoing president

Wendy P. 

[jakee 1,569]

  On 11/19/2024 at 3:08 PM, metalslug said:

?? How could we possibly know that answer? Have the full transcripts of those meetings with Trump been publicly shared?

Then how do you know how much they warmed up to him? Seems odd to to tear down your own post so viciously, but ok.

At least you're now acknowledging that the Putin speech you were so keen to share really does make them sound like mates.

[billvon 3,088]

  On 11/14/2024 at 12:27 PM, metalslug said:

Where and how do you suppose I could check the minutia of those cases in any way more thoroughly than the team appointed to do so (for purposes of pardon)?

It's cute that you think Trump appoints a team to thoroughly review the minutiae of the cases he pardons.