Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Projection. As usual when you cannot support your claims you only make more false and unsupported claims.Wow! Once again incredible reading comprehension problems and a red herring.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Projection. As usual when you cannot support your claims you only make more false and unsupported claims.Wow! Once again incredible reading comprehension problems and a red herring.
It's not a one-way discussion, right? Right???She was an expense because they paid her to keep quite about Trump's past. The evidence from the trial showed that he did not pay her so that he did not get in trouble with Melania. There was evidence of that in the trail:
"In short, Cohen is testifying about the delays to say: Trump told him to string Stormy Daniels along as long as possible — preferably until after the election. Because if he could keep her holding on that long, the story would stay secret and if he won, then it wouldn't matter because the election was over. And if he lost, then he wouldn't care if the story became public."
And we are trying to help you to understand the reality since you obviously did not pay any attention to the trial.
My facts are straight. What did I get wrong. Please prove it.Projection. As usual when you cannot support your claims you only make more false and unsupported claims.
Yes, but since you cannot support any of your claims and only post unsupported nonsense I am trying to help you.It's not a one-way discussion, right? Right???
The world is proud of America for convicting Trump of some of his crimes. America showed the world that even a former president is not above the law. It's Trump who shames the justice system with pardons for his cronies, calling J6 prisoners hostages, and his false complaint of rigged trials.
Sure they were, and Trump was convicted of it.
Yes. Also, convicted felon.
You'd have to poll each juror to know what secondary crime or crimes they found Trump guilty of.
I believed her. I also believed Cohen, Pecker, and Hill. And I believed E Jean Carroll in those trials.
Nope, you made the claims first, you need to support them. You really do not know how to play this game do you?My facts are straight. What did I get wrong. Please prove it.
By the way, I can see why you did not support your bogus claim about Trumps nondisclosure agreement.
Please provide evidence that this was a "kangaroo court".Good grief your appeal to popularity fallacy is endearing .. but not an argument for much .. and on second thought .. patently false nonsense. There is nothing to cheer about a nation's kangaroo Justice system sans by those who hate it ? .. and certainly nothing to be proud of.. and really bad for business .. one of those bigger picture items that flew overhead unnoticed ..
They spelled "kangaroo" correctly.Please provide evidence that this was a "kangaroo court".
Is it? Do you even know why that defense will probably fail? You really should if you are a democrat.Nope, you made the claims first, you need to support them. You really do not know how to play this game do you?
Did you see what I did above? You need to be able to do that. All that I have to do to prove that your posts are unsupported is to quote them. There is no support for your claims in any of them recently.
I don't have cable TV either, but I am not ignorant of the falsehoods spewed by the right wing, what is your excuse?It certainly can't be me either. I don't have cable TV, so I don't get Fox News or Tucker Carlson.
My "excuse"? You're the one accusing me of using their rhetoric.I don't have cable TV either, but I am not ignorant of the falsehoods spewed by the right wing, what is your excuse?
More running away and hiding. That did not work well for Rudy. Or did you forget his birthday gift?Is it? Do you even know why that defense will probably fail? You really should if you are a democrat.
You misspelled "incredibly weak rationalization".My "excuse"? You're the one accusing me of using their rhetoric.
Maybe I just have the same common sense reasoning abilities that other great minds have, and don't need to see or hear them to come to the same reasonable conclusions.
No we have a process of determining what is spin and what is reality, one side argued spin, the other argued the accepted rules and 12 random people sworn to no biased judgement decided. Spin lost. You want to rewrite the rules or disagree, follow the rules to change the system, but your opinion isn't the way the system works.That's one narrative you could use to spin the facts, I suppose.
But it's quite a bit of twisting and contorting to form a story to sound the way you want it to. Anything to go after the Republican candidate just before an election.
Hey! Maybe the prosecutors in these cases should be labeling their court costs as campaign expenses since the trials were intended to hurt Trump so he couldn't be on the campaign trail and gain support. If they don't label them that way, they need to be put away for felonies.
More running away and hiding. That did not work well for Rudy. Or did you forget his birthday gift?
Damned by faint praise. OKWell, he has mastered the art of goading. I'll give him that much.
It is if only one side can present anything factual.It's not a one-way discussion, right? Right???
It's true. His enemies call him Hitler, and so Trump starts using words such as Reich to goad them. Sure enough, the libs react with, "See! He's Hitler! He's terrible! He wants to kill his enemies! He'll turn America into a death camp!" Hahahaha!Damned by faint praise. OK
You seem to think it is a good debate skill.
No wonder I feel like I'm talking to myself.It is if only one side can present anything factual.
It was a jury trial, they are based on the believability of the evidence by persons sworn to objectivity, accepting their decision is the basis of our judicial system. That Trump and sycophants want to change this is what we object to, should we use trial by combat or something.Good grief your appeal to popularity fallacy is endearing .. but not an argument for much .. and on second thought .. patently false nonsense. There is nothing to cheer about a nation's kangaroo Justice system sans by those who hate it ? .. and certainly nothing to be proud of.. and really bad for business .. one of those bigger picture items that flew overhead unnoticed ..