Trump shocks by hawking $60 MAGA Bibles

@Patricio Da Silva

""The value of art is talent plus fame, however that fame is obtained.""

Do you have a link to Hunter actually painting.... could it be possible none of the picture were ever touched by Hunter or his "toot" straw?

 

Phony?

Have you even thought your premise through?

Imagine you are a prosecutor, state or federal, and you have facts which would conceivably allow you to indict the former President Of the United States, and not just any former president, a very rich former president whose base historically has threatened persons acting in ways not favorable to Trump.

You will be engaging in what is known as a maiden voyage prosecution, which is one that has never been done, i.e., the indictment of a former President.

And you know your case, though it might be good, almost always have a few slight defects. Few cases are slam dunk, even obvious ones. Those little defects in your presentation will be exploited, scrutinized, cross-examined, not to mention severely blown out of proportion by Trump in the public sphere, all without regard to costs of defense, all designed to mobilize his base against you. .

And you'd better not lose the case. The old proverb, 'if you shoot an arrow at the king, you'd better not miss' comes to mind.

You will be thrown onto the world stage, you will be making history in the grandest of terms, and your every move, comment, anything and everything will be subject to world scrutiny, reporters will follow you everywhere, as Trump loving protesters will never cease harassing you, threatening your life and that of your loved ones, during the entire proceeding. Trump will make sly comments which will be tacit approval of such acts, such as 'bad things will happen if I am indicted' (while never condoning or being specific as to what those things are).

Trump warns of ‘problems’ like ‘we’ve never seen’ if he’s indicted
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...like-weve-never-seen-if-hes-indicted-00056911

And Trump will be smearing you all day every day as long as you pursue the case against him, and it will not stop, the harassments by his base will be like a fire hose spraying poison into your house with indefatigable force.
And, if you lose the case, hell hath no fury like a Donald Trump on the vengeance path, all directed towards you with the full weight of his base and his wealth..

You honestly believe any prosecutor, with the wrath of the Trump and his base, the world spotlight burning down their backside, that they would endure all this, unless they had TONS OF EVIDENCE?

See, 'evidence', lots of it, and where that is likely to be true, is all that matters.

'Evidence' means the OPPOSITE of 'phony'.

 

Nice projection, text book, I'd say.

 

I repeat, results obtained via DELIBERATE & avoidable inhumane immoral policies, regardless of numbers, are INVALID statistics and cannot be used as a comparative base.

Let's take your 'logic' to it's conclusion:

I could do better; just shoot everyone who crosses the border and the stat will be zero.

Of course, the above is murder, and not doable, it's illegal, etc., but I'm just employing reductio ad absurdum technique (which means following your logic to it's conclusion) to discover if your premise is valid, and it fails the technique.

Now do you see why Trump's stat which deliberately permanently separates children from parents, a deliberately cruel and inhumane policy, can't be used as a comparative base?

 

No one was harmed and the law has never been used in the same way before.

Phony. Phony. Phony..

 

2000 children harmed vs 85,000 children harmed. I choose 2000.

It does not have to be an all or nothing. We give them fair warning. If they still decide to cross, start shooting. Likely only one or two will be shot before the others turn around and start crossing legally like they should have to start with. Saves American lives in the long run.

 

No what he thinks about God is between him and God. Trump sells products Biden sell his ass. I prefer the former to the latter. I simply view Trump as less dangerous over all to the body politic than the far left that currently runs the Biden administration.

 

But it is okay knowing full well that politics was almost certainly the only reason anyone bought Hunters nose blowings.

 

Politics 101: Deny everything.

 

I presented a solid argument to why your contention is false, you have failed to counter it with a substantive argument.

Your only response is 'you are wrong', which is not a substantive argument that moves the debate forward, it is an attempt to kill the conversation.

Fail.

 

I'm using deliberate numbers. If I were to include the non deliberate, Trump's numbers would go way up.

DELIBERATE. Inadvertent and unavoidable is not a apples to apples comparison.

 

No one was harmed and the law has never been used before. No matter how you twist and turn, you cannot change those facts.

Phoney, Phoney, Phoney.

 

2000 to 85000 is an apples to apples comparison. Net results were by far better when only 2000 were misplaced.

 

No, it's not phony at all. I don't have to twist anything, just look at the facts, which you are ignoring, probably because your knowledge lacks depth and nuance.

The argument that New York Executive Law 63 (12) has never been used in Trump’s indictment before, and therefore his charges are baseless, overlooks several key points:

Statutory Authority: While it’s true that this specific statute hasn’t been frequently invoked, its rarity doesn’t invalidate its applicability NY Executive Law 63 (12) grants the state attorney broad powers to investigate and prosecute civil fraud.1 It is a legitimate legal framework for addressing fraudulent activities.

Consumer Protections: The statute is not limited to criminal cases but also serves to protect consumers and address fraudulent practices. Its purpose extends beyond traditional criminal charges, making it relevant in cases involving financial misconduct.

Unique Elements: Unlike other laws, NY Executive Law 63 (12) doesn’t require the presence of victims. Instead, it focuses on ongoing fraud committed by an individual or organization. By eliminating the need to demonstrate specific harm to victims, it uniquely addresses fraudulent behavior2.

Prosecutorial Discretion: Prosecutors have discretion in choosing the appropriate legal avenue based on the circumstances. Just because a statute hasn’t been used previously doesn’t render it invalid. The attorney general’s decision to employ this statute reflects their assessment of the case’s merits.

Precedent and Interpretation: Legal systems evolve, and statutes are interpreted in light of changing contexts. The absence of prior cases under this statute doesn’t diminish its legitimacy. Courts consider the intent of the law and its relevance to the situation at hand.

In summary, the argument that Trump’s charges are baseless due to the statute’s infrequent use overlooks the unique features of NY Executive Law 63 (12) and the prosecutor’s discretion in applying it. The court will assess the case based on legal principles and evidence, not solely on historical precedent.

In essence, your argument can fails for it's lack of nuance, but, to be more specific, I've taken a deeper dive dismantling your argument, which, of course, is false. In fact, it's nonsense.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...suit-branding-it-unconstitutional/ss-AA1hGet9

https://www.bbc.com/news/66989373

 

No, it's not. Stop it. Stats achieved via inhumane and cruelty are not valid stats. I've already proven this.

End of argument. "Misplaced"? they were DELIBERATELY PERMANENTLY LOST from their parents.

 

It is never been used before where there were no victims. That law is usually used for defective merchandize or misleading advertising.

 

I consider the loss of 85000 children lost to possible prostitution, child slavery and other unknowns to be much more serious that 2000 children that most likely ended up in good homes. They do not know what happened to those 85000 children after they got separated from their parents.

 

Reread my comment. It explains why your premise is nonsense.

 

I posted about those kids, go back and reread what I wrote. You're just regurgitating the same argument without adding nothing to my rebuttals.

Good homes? how would you like to lose a child for a crime no worse than a misdemeanor?

Like I said, a cruel, inhumane policy's stats are not valid.

 

My comments said all that is necessary. Law was not intended for this purpose. No victims. Law has never been used this way before.

 

How about good homes for those 85,000 children? We don't know what happened to them at all and likely the worse happened to a large number of them. They are just as important as those 2000. Aren't the parents of that 85,000 just as important as those 2000?

 

Reread my comment. It explains why your premise is nonsense.

 

Biden did not DELIBERATELY lose children. How many frickin' times do I have to tell you this?

If I looked at the non deliberate losts children that showed up at the border without parents during Trump, it would be way way way more than 2200. Hell, there were a half million detentions, and a large swath of them were unaccompanied, way way more than 85,000 but THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, but with Joe it is what you are talking about, and these are false comparisons.

 

I don't consider 85,000 children permanently separated from their parents and likely subjected to prostitution, child slavery and chld abuse to be nonsense.

 

Neither did Trump. They were supposed to be reunited with their parents after their parents were released either in the US to back to country of origin.