metalslug

Members
  • Content

    1,252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by metalslug

  1. 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.
  2. I believe there is already some discussion along those lines starting here about emboldened conservatives since the election...
  3. 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".
  4. I would not know that any more than you do since we don't have access to the case files nor necessarily the knowledge of law to properly evaluate them. But; I'm prepared to go on faith for now that legal scholars perusing "on a case-by-case basis", as stated by the spokesperson, will find some. The scope of CRT makes many more claims than merely the bias application and interpretation of Southern state laws. To claim that "CRT is right" is about as valid as the US election outcome vindicating every single republican policy. Arguments that we either both lose or both win.
  5. ?? How a justice system subjectively acts against people has very little to do with how strong the evidence in a case is. By "people" above I had specifically intended to refer to the group of Jan 6 protestors, some of whom absolutely had strong cases against them and should not be pardoned. For those with weaker evidence, as with cases in Southern states having weak evidence; I'm not losing sleep over those pardons.
  6. What part of this are you still missing? " I'm fine if he pardoned any convictions that had weak cases."
  7. That's fair comment and I should probably be less flippant in my own comments regarding this. I've been on-and-off these forums for almost 20 years and had a fondness for them for at least 10 of those, until I stopped jumping, and then SC largely for its' comedic value. Agreed there's a wealth of genuinely good skydiving information here that would be a shame to lose.
  8. No that's not what I said. I don't believe partisan bias can make a legal case weak but rather only impacts whether a judge or jury requires a strong case to convict. I have no doubt such bias has occurred in those Southern states but whataboutism doesn't make it right.
  9. Actually it did, unless you're not comparing your question to mine. My concern was with the zealous application of laws (on poor evidence) by a judiciary and jury pool in deep blue DC. I have no problem with the laws themselves. In that regard it was asked and answered; " I'm fine if he pardoned any convictions that had weak cases." Now; if you'd like to debate the laws themselves then there are a few previous (dead horse) SC threads about that for you to peruse. There's a new DA in Los Angeles who has vowed to be tougher on crime there (which is not the same as weak cases). No doubt that he will be called a racist by the left for vowing that, if not already has been.
  10. This is my point too. If SC is the most active forum then why save dropzone.com ? Is it the hosting platform that's useful or the domain name? Would SC members rename it democratzone.com and drop all the other forums?
  11. There's at least one liberal here who believes that the most interest to buy and 'save' DZ.com can be found in this SC forum which doesn't even discuss skydiving; a rather loud cry to preserve a political echo chamber. And, if he's correct and the forum is indeed saved.by SC members then I can bet dollars to doughnuts that you'll still be here like furniture. Where else will you find a community that gives 'likes' to your comments? If it doesn't work out then there will nearly always be clouds you could shout at.
  12. Do you regard this as a Speakers Corner topic?
  13. Well, I'm sure you'll take some consolation that he's appointing some people other than old, white men. Because, for liberals, that's what's really going to matter here. OK, you've got me here. I thought that was a hoax parody when I first read it. WTF?
  14. Did you see the "This site is for sale" banner up top? Lately DZ.com has got nowhere to go but up. The members who were not driven away by the interface format changes years ago likely lost their taste for the forums right here in hard-left vitriolic SC. In some ways the SC forum is a reflection of the larger liberal position; "I have blocked person X!" . "I won't read your links and videos!"; they isolate in echo chambers and are then surprised by election results or surprised to learn that Biden was impaired. Even the D's own polling methods were closed off. With recent events I suspect conservatives might expect to notice more humility here now or at least a greater willingness from liberals to 'read the room' of political climate.
  15. Isn't that what a great many Dem presidents have already done? Obama must have had carpal tunnel after signing 1927 pardons during his terms and I'm fairly sure they were not all white folk in blue states. I'm fine if he pardoned any convictions that had weak cases. I certainly should assume that you're fine with it.
  16. But he's not even using the correct regional voice accent when pandering to an audience! Harris at least did that. Bread and circuses indeed.
  17. There was nowhere further to go with that. As with most things we agree to disagree. The only difference of late is that I don't need to give a shit that you disagree since the liberal 'boogey man' campaign has already fallen flat.
  18. Not quite so cut and dried, IMO. If we consider this; "I said, peacefully and patriotically, nothing done wrong at all. Nothing done wrong..." , I'm inclined to interpret that Trump was referring to himself, as his tweeted comments or other communications to supporters on the day, as being nothing done wrong. Such a denial would also be in character for Trump if he was attempting to convince Ramiro, who posed the question, that he distanced himself from the violent action. Again I'll say this will play out in time; if he pardons them all I'll be willing to return here and say the sweeping pardons are disgraceful.
  19. Unless I missed a conflicting statement of his elsewhere, that last I read on this was; Therefore; "nothing at all was done wrong by any of his supporters on Jan 6th" does appear to contradict the quote I've referenced so I'm open to viewing your citation too. If indeed he does pardon all of them then that would be very poor form.
  20. All but two US presidents have issued pardons during their term(s) and one might reasonably assume that some (likely most) of those had solid convictions against them; Obama's 1927 vs Trumps 237 .. so far. However; I'll agree that Trump's pattern of pardons are less altruistic in nature, and unfortunately so.
  21. Emigration? perhaps the best thing you can do really, and I don't mean that sarcastically. I emigrated myself when South Africa (subjectively) went to shit. It's better than wailing against the same democracy that seemed to be so important to you before the election.
  22. Well that's a convenient setup for your unlosable argument; if he pardons any then it's an abhorrent breach of justice and if he doesn't then he's used and tossed them aside like garbage. You get to fill a negative narrative either way. Yay! I would be surprised (and appalled) if he releases any that had 'airtight' convictions from CCTV and/or proven forensics, although cases with scant circumstantial evidence could see a few of them pardoned. It's not as though the justice system in deep blue DC at the time was acting impartially on people who they knew would not have the resources to appeal.
  23. On that statement. That's rather different than saying that everything Putin says is true. Don't hurt yourself with that stretch; I was implying it's a common example of the conspiracy theorist liberal who would automatically assume that a pro-Biden statement to be Putin's clever lie so as to fit their preferred narrative of Trump. Both yourself and nigel99 are free to disagree with my opinion on that, in the same way you may disagree that Biden had impairments for several years while the Dems were in denial. "liberalism" eh? In which part of Putin's event speech was that word included? Since Trump is not a liberal it's rather convenient for you to include that word. Who is misquoting now? That's only true if you assume Trump's policy on Ukraine was not well-known to the electorate, therefore cannot be conclusively stated that it was not a referendum on Ukraine. That remains (your) opinion. It serves Trump's interest (to the US electorate) to paint Putin as a mastermind that can only be effectively dealt with by another mastermind such as himself. Much like Harris' "Putin would eat Trump for lunch" comment; should we thereby also infer that Harris believes Putin to be a masterful politician?
  24. I was not suggesting that everything that Putin says is true. I was pointing out how liberals selectively cherry-pick his anti-Trump or pro-Biden statements as clever lies and his pro-Trump statements as truths because they are supposedly best pals that regularly conspire in laptops and elections and whatever else the left claims that they do to fit their preferred smear-by-association narrative. Within the context of Trump vs Democrats; the outcome here is not about what either Putin or Ukraine prefer. It's about what the American electorate prefer regarding their part in this. The electorate might or might not have been aware that Trump intends to try end the war as soon as able and they might further have known, or not, that the only way to end it soon is through a compromise in which Ukraine comes out as the loser of territory. The possible upside, from an American perspective, is that their money stops bleeding into that war and people stop dying there. In a perfect world I might think to myself that I'd love to see NATO land everything they've got in Ukraine and drive out Russia from all of Ukraine in quick time. But of course Russia might launch nukes or attract allies and it all becomes another super-sized shitstorm that US citizens had never asked to be a part of in a far-off country.
  25. Ooh, that's rich, considering you stood by your statement twice after I questioned it and even when I suggested that you read it back to yourself. So we had established all the context needed based on that. But now it's a typo? Of course....