Crime Mango Molester's sentencing

[mkess101]

Its not true though, you just have bad reading comprehension in addition to being an ignorant hack. Anyone with a 10th grade reading level could read the totality of my posts and see I framed that opinion tentatively, even in the very post you zeroed in on but didn't quote because you knew I had a qualifier there("I think") which itself was in between two other posts with similar framing(e.g. "possibly", "if anything"). You're desperately reaching for something here to suggest I tripped up or acted hypocritically but to no avail. People like you are used to farting out your clueless opinions with no pushback, bends you're lazy thinking here.

That there was a bipartisan vote confirming Garland suggests that he was a moderate with a strong reputation for doing his job absent political pressure and his confirmation was seemingly defined by his insistence that this was the case. That 40% of Senate Republicans voted to confirm in the divisive climate we have now suggests that even a significant minority of Republicans might've felt that way. Zero reason to think Garland had any political pressure or motivation to go after Trump and IF ANYTHING it was POSSIBLY the opposite.

I'm not reaching for anything. Your qualifier in that sentence was in reference to the motivation. You then typed a second part of the sentence where you used "in fact" that specifically applied to him going easy on Trump. If you want to claim you misspoke that's fine, but coming at me as though it was ME making any sort of definitive assertion is why I called you out. I notice you have no interest in addressing that. Which seems to be SOP for you. Infer that I've made some sort of definitive claim and when called out, ignore it as though you didn't infer it at all.

And again, it's amazing you try to infer that this would've been a static situation. As though the amount of pressure potentially felt by Garland couldn't change throughout the time he was involved. And sadly, despite your own utterly lazy thinking here you have no hesitation at all in resorting to childish name calling.

I suppose after your horrid showing when it came to Biden's decline (specifically being too gutless to condemn another poster that attacked the morality of those who dared point out the obvious) i shouldn't be surprised.

Feel free to type whatever you want without fear of having it brought back up though. Not gonna waste time telling you what you typed only to have you spend numerous posts explaining why "that phrase didn't count". Lesson learned on that front, your own words only matter when you say they do.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm not reaching for anything. Your qualifier in that sentence was in reference to the motivation. You then typed a second part of the sentence where you used "in fact" that specifically applied to him going easy on Trump. If you want to claim you misspoke that's fine, but coming at me as though it was ME making any sort of definitive assertion is why I called you out. I notice you have no interest in addressing that. Which seems to be SOP for you. Infer that I've made some sort of definitive claim and when called out, ignore it as though you didn't infer it at all.

Anyone reading in good faith with a 10th grade reading level can see what I was getting at but no surprise you're reaching as hard as you are. Its no wonder you didn't even quote the post when you cited it and ignored every other instance of my tentative couching of the claim.

Btw it's funny that you're attacking me for my tepid statements here as being too assertive despite my tentative language when this is the kind of thing you were posting in the beginning of the thread:

It ain't one or the other, folks. Trump is shady AF and was convicted AND it's been pretty much a political witch hunt.

Indictments are easy to get. Doesn't mean he wasn't guilty, but the inquiries likely were spurred by politics yes.

Without going through the mountain of stuff that's filled this forum for years--my view is that Trump pulled shady and likely illegal shit but that once the transfer of power had already happened, the fervor in which he was still hunted undoubtedly had some political motivation.

And yet later...

Well no shit...I never said it was undeniably true that he'd be biased against Trump.

Who here was really asserting their claim with confidence? Yeah you didn't say it was undeniably true, just undoubtedly so. Just in case you might've misused the word here's what it means

un·doubt·ed·ly
adverb
without doubt; certainly.

1. "they are undoubtedly guilty"

And again, it's amazing you try to infer that this would've been a static situation. As though the amount of pressure potentially felt by Garland couldn't change throughout the time he was involved. And sadly, despite your own utterly lazy thinking here you have no hesitation at all in resorting to childish name calling.

At some point I gotta call a spade a spade. In this case there's no way around it, you're a clueless hack

 

[Lycandroid]

anyone want to start a band called mango and the molesters with me ?

 

[mkess101]

Anyone reading in good faith with a 10th grade reading level can see what I was getting at but no surprise you're reaching as hard as you are. Its no wonder you didn't even quote the post when you cited it and ignored every other instance of my tentative couching of the claim.

Btw it's funny that you're attacking me for my tepid statements here as being too assertive despite my tentative language when this is the kind of thing you were posting in the beginning of the thread:



And yet later...

Who here was really asserting their claim with confidence? Yeah you didn't say it was undeniably true, just undoubtedly so. Just in case you might've misused the word here's what it means


At some point I gotta call a spade a spade. In this case there's no way around it, you're a clueless hack

Back at ya. Since...ya know...my original comment wasn't about specifically Garland and those charges but all the other shit that's helped been orchestrated by his direct rivals. And the subsequent comments you're quoting were pretty obviously general statements about the totality of those going after him in the entirety of his legal cases. You know, the shit with paying off Daniels, etc. Please show me where those comments directly refer to Garland. I'm sure I'll be waiting forever because ya know, none of those were specifically about him.



So which is it? Did you know that and are just a completely dishonest hack? Or were you too dumb or blinded by rage or something else that had you flail in and assume those comments were only about the charges brought by the DOJ that you focused on after I'd made those comments?

 

[mkess101]

The best part of this is that I don't like Trump, didn't vote for him (either time) and think he's a narcissist. I'll be glad when he's out of politics for good. But it's still good to expose someone like this that doesn't want to address things honestly. That thinks the only way to view things is their way and will spend gobs of time trying to convince you that you're opinion can't be reasonable. Who thinks that as the public, any attempt to inject human nature into the equation is folly but instead we need to gobble up only what's expressed by those who support our views and assume that it's all above board and the only thing we should base our views off. Sad.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Back at ya. Since...ya know...my original comment wasn't about specifically Garland and those charges but all the other shit that's helped been orchestrated by his direct rivals. And the subsequent comments you're quoting were pretty obviously general statements about the totality of those going after him in the entirety of his legal cases. You know, the shit with paying off Daniels, etc. Please show me where those comments directly refer to Garland. I'm sure I'll be waiting forever because ya know, none of those were specifically about him.



So which is it? Did you know that and are just a completely dishonest hack? Or were you too dumb or blinded by rage or something else that had you flail in and assume those comments were only about the charges brought by the DOJ that you focused on after I'd made those comments?

I've hung you thrice over with your own words and you want more? Fine, but first let's address that you made this claim:

What I'm saying that's unequivocally true is that between the two of us, only you made a comment that had any sort of definitive assertion.

which as I showed in the last post was is false, if anything between us you are the only one who made a definitive claims here by asserting that it was "undoubtedly" the case that the Trump was being subject to political persecution. You spoke with a lot of confidence initially and only walked it back after I made it clear you actually had no fucking idea what you're talking about at all, not even one bit. But instead of being honest about it like a weaselly little liar you pretend you never made any such statements!

Now as for Garland, what about this post? You mention Garland by name initially and then go on to say

Garland has no political leanings? Sheesh. Again, I'm not saying he isn't guilty. You're harping on me not following the details but they're irrelevant in whether or not political enemies would try to go after him. Of course they would.

Here you are in plain English scoffing at the idea that Garland would have no political leanings and then go on to say "of course" Trump's enemies would go after him. The implication is obvious, "of course" Garland was politically motivated here if only because he was appointed by Trump's rivals and thus "of course" he'd try to go after Trump. Never mind that 20/50 Senate Republicans voted to confirm the guy, all that matters is that he was appointed by Biden and thus must be politically motivated.

Later in the thread you posted this:

I'm not advocating that Garland or Smith or anyone face consequences of any kind. I'm not claiming I know how much political motivations may have played a role. I'm saying that to me, given the totality of the rheotric surrounding all of Trump's legal issues (much of it from who directly appointed those assigned to prosecute him)...it's likely that politics entered the minds of all involved to SOME degree. Is there a reason you continue to try to discuss this as though I'm bringing legal action against anyone LOL?

In this context you mention Garland by name in the post and then go on to say that its "likely" that politics was motivating "all involved" to some degree. You even once again make reference to the idea that because Biden appointed Garland he must be politically motivated on some level to pursue Biden's interest which are assumed to be Trump's prosecution. This would certainly read like a statement that would include Garland and claims that its likely that he and the others were politically motivated.

The best part of this is that I don't like Trump, didn't vote for him (either time) and think he's a narcissist. I'll be glad when he's out of politics for good. But it's still good to expose someone like this that doesn't want to address things honestly. That thinks the only way to view things is their way and will spend gobs of time trying to convince you that you're opinion can't be reasonable. Who thinks that as the public, any attempt to inject human nature into the equation is folly but instead we need to gobble up only what's expressed by those who support our views and assume that it's all above board and the only thing we should base our views off. Sad.

You don't like Trump but somehow can't help yourself from farting out the most clueless takes in his defense in thread after thread, its really quite interesting. If I had critics like you who would need friends?

 

[CatchnShoot]

It IS possible for a POS to walk and talk...... I present to you Mr. Donald Trump.

Such a fucking joke.

His only sentence is to be declared officially guilty. ..... which we have known for the better part of a year.

And Trump STILL has a hissy fit over it. What a gigantic bitch. Never in the history of America has one jerk off gotten away with such a lengthy and obvious life of crime, and continued to play the victim to his rube supporters. The dude is the fucking president and still has half the country convinced that he's the most persecuted Being since Jesus. I say "Being" because, like Jesus, Trump and his supporters don't see him (Trump) as a mere mortal. How else do you justify the rape, fraud, racism, and treason? Clearly he is above the law, and I just don't understand just how special this particular misogynist is.

Note to rubes: He wasn't persecuted, he was prosecuted, because he DID all the crimes he was charged with.



Kudos to him, he's managed to turn the "Party of personal responsibility" in the the party of never accepting the consequences of your own actions. A complete 180 in party philosophy built around one man with the mentality of a 4 year old. It's really remarkable.

Antichrist 2025---make America Burn.

Just remember your vote in 2024 when bread costs $5 a loaf while Trump sits on his golden throne dropping a deuce.

 

[mkess101]

I've hung you thrice over with your own words and you want more? Fine, but first let's address that you made this claim:

which as I showed in the last post was is false, if anything between us you are the only one who made a definitive claims here by asserting that it was "undoubtedly" the case that the Trump was being subject to political persecution. You spoke with a lot of confidence initially and only walked it back after I made it clear you actually had no fucking idea what you're talking about at all, not even one bit. But instead of being honest about it like a weaselly little liar you pretend you never made any such statements!

Now as for Garland, what about this post? You mention Garland by name initially and then go on to say

Here you are in plain English scoffing at the idea that Garland would have no political leanings and then go on to say "of course" Trump's enemies would go after him. The implication is obvious, "of course" Garland was politically motivated here if only because he was appointed by Trump's rivals and thus "of course" he'd try to go after Trump. Never mind that 20/50 Senate Republicans voted to confirm the guy, all that matters is that he was appointed by Biden and thus must be politically motivated.

Later in the thread you posted this:

In this context you mention Garland by name in the post and then go on to say that its "likely" that politics was motivating "all involved" at least to some degree. You even once again make reference to the idea that because Biden appointed Garland he must be politically motivated on some level to pursue Biden's interest which are assumed to be Trump's prosecution. This would certainly read like a statement that would include Garland and claims that its likely that he and the others were politically motivated.

You don't like Trump but somehow can't help yourself from farting out the most clueless takes in his defense in thread after thread, its really quite interesting. If I had critics like you who would need friends?

You realize you type all this and STILL can't use my actual words to prove what you're claiming? Of course yoh don't realize that. Always with you it's "blah blah blah so the implication is..." But no, it's not. That's YOU trying to shoehorn it in so you can try to win an e-fight.

For example when I say it's likely politics entered the minds of involved, you try to spin that as me directly saying he's absolutely doing Biden's bidding in prosecuting. But that's not what I said. In fact, YOU posted Garland's quotes where he addresses public sentiment so quite obviously he DID have public perception on his mind to some degree. Do you think you won't be caught conflating things like this? Maybe you're rarely called out on it?

I don't like Trump. I'm just able to be honest in understanding the flaws of his opponents too. Specifically in that they are not above being motivated by political gain to a fault. That allows me to both criticize Trump for being the stain that he is on our political system while also seeing the shit show on the other side. Something you aren't evidently capable of.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You realize you type all this and STILL can't use my actual words to prove what you're claiming? Of course yoh don't realize that. Always with you it's "blah blah blah so the implication is..." But no, it's not. That's YOU trying to shoehorn it in so you can try to win an e-fight.

For example when I say it's likely politics entered the minds of involved, you try to spin that as me directly saying he's absolutely doing Biden's bidding in prosecuting. But that's not what I said. In fact, YOU posted Garland's quotes where he addresses public sentiment so quite obviously he DID have public perception on his mind to some degree. Do you think you won't be caught conflating things like this? Maybe you're rarely called out on it?

Once again your reading comprehension fails you. The claim I made in that post was relating to your level of certainty in regards to there being political motivation at play, not that you were claiming that Garland was doing Biden's bidding in some direct way.

You initially stated it confidently multiple times that the cases against Trump were politically motivated only to walk it back once it became clear you had not even one iota of understanding of the facts of the matter. Only to then later accuse me of asserting my take as irrefutably true despite the tentative language I used across multiple posts to couch my claim.

This is typical of you, lie and distort the conversation while moving the goalposts so that I have to go back and hang you with your own words over and over again. This is why I can quote your posts directly and point to your own words while you have to twist my words to fit your argument.

I don't like Trump. I'm just able to be honest in understanding the flaws of his opponents too. Specifically in that they are not above being motivated by political gain to a fault. That allows me to both criticize Trump for being the stain that he is on our political system while also seeing the shit show on the other side. Something you aren't evidently capable of.

You're not honest at all, quite the opposite you're a weaselly little liar dude. You can't see anything as it is because you're wholly uninterested in acquainting yourself with the facts of the matter before shitting out your worthless opinion.

 

[mkess101]

Once again your reading comprehension fails you. The claim I made in that post was relating to your level of certainty in regards to there being political motivation at play, not that you were claiming that Garland was doing Biden's bidding in some direct way.

You initially stated it confidently multiple times that the cases against Trump were politically motivated only to walk it back once it became clear you had not even one iota of understanding of the facts of the matter. Only to then later accuse me of asserting my take as irrefutably true despite the tentative language I used across multiple posts to couch my claim.

This is typical of you, lie and distort the conversation while moving the goalposts so that I have to go back and hang you with your own words over and over again. This is why I can quote your posts directly and point to your own words while you have to twist my words to fit your argument.

You're not honest at all, quite the opposite you're a weaselly little liar dude. You can't see anything as it is because you're wholly uninterested in acquainting yourself with the facts of the matter before shitting out your worthless opinion.

Your posts are now just sounding like pure whining that I haven't capitulated to your ridiculous claims. You do what I've seen a million times--project and distort, all the while putting forth some self righteous facade because you think it will shield you from being seen for what you're doing. Claiming you've "hanged me with my own words", while presumably knowing none of what you're attributing to me is accurate. Throwing in your own interpretation of what I've said as though I'd accept that as truth. It's now gone from mildly irritating to just boring. Neither of us are ever going to care one iota about what the other thinks. (Well, I won't presume to speak for you. I can only tell you I will never care what you think).
This has more than run its course.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Your posts are now just sounding like pure whining that I haven't capitulated to your ridiculous claims. You do what I've seen a million times--project and distort, all the while putting forth some self righteous facade because you think it will shield you from being seen for what you're doing. Claiming you've "hanged me with my own words", while presumably knowing none of what you're attributing to me is accurate. Throwing in your own interpretation of what I've said as though I'd accept that as truth. It's now gone from mildly irritating to just boring. Neither of us are ever going to care one iota about what the other thinks. (Well, I won't presume to speak for you. I can only tell you I will never care what you think).
This has more than run its course.

Keep coping nitwit, you got your butt handed to you up and down this thread by your own words over and over again. Its a wonder it took you this long to throw in the towel.

 

[mkess101]

Keep coping nitwit, you got your butt handed to you up and down this thread by your own words over and over again. Its a wonder it took you this long to throw in the towel.

I'm pretty sure you realize that I give absolutely zero credence to your assessment of what happened here. At least I'd hope you'd be that minimally perceptive. Your interpretation of my words was comical throughout, but in the end predictable. Also unsurprising is the canned "you're running away" when someone tells you they're tired of your nonsense. I could practically write your replies for you at this point.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

N.Y. appellate judge allows Trump's Friday hush money sentencing to go forward

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued that his client is already protected by presidential immunity and that the judge should block his sentencing on state felony charges.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Kingz]

Sentence was nothing

May the appeals process begin.

I’ll give it 16 months tops before the convictions are reversed and calling Trump a convicted felon is libelous so media should mileage out of it while they still can.

Even though it has no impact on your favorite President. Not during the election. Not now that he achieved total victory over the defeated “resistance”

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Sentenced with no penalty. That's how you know the case is totally legit and not about politics.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

N.Y. appellate judge allows Trump's Friday hush money sentencing to go forward

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued that his client is already protected by presidential immunity and that the judge should block his sentencing on state felony charges.

www.nbcnews.com

lol you lost

 

[kflo]

Sentenced with no penalty. That's how you know the case is totally legit and not about politics.

How do you conclude that??

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

lol...not even front page news.

dude spent a lifetime building a judicial career, then destroyed it to own the chuds, and no one even cares.

 

[BFoe]

I never expected much punishment on this one.

But it is official, America has elected our first ever convicted felon to the presidency, an act of absolute shame that conservatives—and anyone else that cast that vote—will own forever.
Fucking clowns.

 

[BFoe]

Double post