Political Posts

[changegonnacome]

7 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Contrary to your claim it wasn’t Trump who dreamed up the indictments.

 

Yeah this woman below who never prosecuted a single case in her life, a former insurance lawyer turned Trump personal assistant/piece of ass.....she came up three indictments.....one of which was thrown out by the grand jury...as mentioned in my post anybody with knowledge of the criminal justice system realizes how Grand Jurys really do live up to "the indict a ham sandwich" phrase.

 

The data on it is irrefutable 99%++ of federal indictments presented get approved by Grand Juries so sub <1% get rejected....Comey case with its single rejection is already a statistical outlier.

 

Anyway Federal judges first then possibly an actual Jury will get to opine on this case....you know what way I think it will go....and so we'll find out I guess.

 

[Sweet]

36 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Yeah this woman below who never prosecuted a single case in her life, a former insurance lawyer turned Trump personal assistant/piece of ass.....she came up three indictments.....one of which was thrown out by the grand jury...as mentioned in my post anybody with knowledge of the criminal justice system realizes how Grand Jurys really do live up to "the indict a ham sandwich" phrase.

 

The data on it is irrefutable 99%++ of federal indictments presented get approved by Grand Juries so sub <1% get rejected....Comey case with its single rejection is already a statistical outlier.

 

Anyway Federal judges first then possibly an actual Jury will get to opine on this case....you know what way I think it will go....and so we'll find out I guess.

 

So you are saying a rookie prosecutor still managed to get two indictments in a 70-30 Democrat district and you think that’s an argument that works in your favour?

[changegonnacome]

12 minutes ago, Sweet said:

So you are saying a rookie prosecutor still managed to get two indictments in a 70-30 Democrat district and you think that’s an argument that works in your favour?

 

99.x% of indictments requested by AG's at the Federal Level result in indictments.....in this particular case......instead of ham sandwich getting indicted....a ham sandwich in mini-skirt got the former FBI indicted....which just goes to show that the old adage is right.....Grand Juries with only the prosecution laying out the case with no rebuttal at all is thankfully not the final call on someones guilt or innocence....and in this instance its a very poor acid test around the quality of said case....which as I've said @Sweet you'll find out relatively soon....which is to say a Federal Judge may throw this out before it even gets to trial and when it does get to trial and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt it will get thrown out then. So ya know lets wait and see....you seem to think this is justified prosecution and evidence bears that out....I think its a piece of shit case that a number of seasoned prosectutors have looked at and refused to charge and they lost their jobs for it......and then a bimbo was parachuted to do what they wouldn't....thankfully the story doesn't end there.....cause Federal judge I'm sure will hear a petition around selective or vindicative prosecution and it will fall then OR it will go to trial and collapse there. This one should be quick enough so we'll know in a matter of weeks/months and we can re-visit then to see who had the 'right' take.

[Parsad]

4 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

On the dip on MAGA push-back on the thread recently - my guess - the fact pattern re: the Comey indictment is just way too hard to twist into anything but abuse of the office of President.....best to take a break from fighting the good fight when Captain Chaos truly transgresses.

 

I get it...Trump is like that friend you defend as basically being a good guy then you go for drinks and he starts fighting with everyone and coming on to people's wifes.

 

I do appreciate hearing the other side of issues and @cubsfan @Red Lion @Gregmal @Sweet have balanced my thinking immensely on lots of issues....not much is ever black or white....makes life interesting....what is clear is that extreme partisanship on the left and right has deranged alot of minds in the US.....the centre ground has just been obliterated by it and moving forward it looks we are going to have political policy volatility like we've never seen before....its going to be a whipsaw from administration to administration. Not good for the country - DC kinda worked for the country the last few decades precisely because it never got much done.....Donald has shown if your willing to invoke emergencies & national security crisis you can actually get a lot done as President......AOC is watching.

 

If you've been balanced by them, then I'm Mitt Romney!    Cheers!

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, cwericb said:

 

Are you familiar with the saying... "Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich"

 

Yes, but only if it's a very delicious ham sandwich! 

 

Some half-assed bologna on Wonderbread with Miracle Whip and processed cheese won't do.  It's got to be Rosemary Ham, dijon mustard, real mayo on either fresh sourdough or rye! 

 

The U.S. Justice system doesn't do half-assed!  Cheers!

[Sweet]

54 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

99.x% of indictments requested by AG's at the Federal Level result in indictments.....in this particular case......instead of ham sandwich getting indicted....a ham sandwich in mini-skirt got the former FBI indicted....which just goes to show that the old adage is right.....Grand Juries with only the prosecution laying out the case with no rebuttal at all is thankfully not the final call on someones guilt or innocence....and in this instance its a very poor acid test around the quality of said case....which as I've said @Sweet you'll find out relatively soon....which is to say a Federal Judge may throw this out before it even gets to trial and when it does get to trial and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt it will get thrown out then. So ya know lets wait and see....you seem to think this is justified prosecution and evidence bears that out....I think its a piece of shit case that a number of seasoned prosectutors have looked at and refused to charge and they lost their jobs for it......and then a bimbo was parachuted to do what they wouldn't....thankfully the story doesn't end there.....cause Federal judge I'm sure will hear a petition around selective or vindicative prosecution and it will fall then OR it will go to trial and collapse there. This one should be quick enough so we'll know in a matter of weeks/months and we can re-visit then to see who had the 'right' take.

Sorry change, but respectfully who gives a fuck?  This just reads as insane levels of cope.

[Gregmal]

Yup. Comey is the epitome of the deep state filth that many people are totally OK with Trump targeting. At the end of the day though, sure, he knows the system well, probably took enough behavioral precautions, and will probably having an elite legal team "I dont recall" his way out of any definitive verdict...but who cares? Make him accountable one way or another. We dont need to weep tears over that guys "constitutional rights" given what he stands for. 

[changegonnacome]

13 minutes ago, Sweet said:

This just reads as insane levels of cope.

 

cope on what? I'm confused....your basically rebutting my position that this case is a joke & presidential overreach....you laid out your position....I laid out mine.....now your just driving the car into the wall and saying who "gives a fuck" anyway...well I guess my answer is you seem to?!?.....I guess not giving "a fuck" is Trump cope talk for yeah if this turns out be a case made out of rice paper like 'the libs/NYT's is saying....I can protect my ego my saying....well I dont care, never did.

 

Reminds me a bit of Epstein birthday card saga......which could be summed up as the five stages of coping with Trump being a deeply flawed person to find yourself defending:

 

(1) its fake news

(2) he'd never write that

(3) he basically barely knew Epstein

(4) the WSJ journal is toast cause he's suing them

 

.......roll the clock forward a few weeks and we get the birthday book......and all of sudden we get to the fifth stage of defending Trump grief

 

(5) who gives a fuck anyway that he wrote a stupid card anyway.....

 

to which everybody with a brains says then why didn't you say that at the start instead of vehemently denying its existence or even the possibility of its existence...that sure feels like cope to me....and I see it very regularly from MAGA

 

[73 Reds]

9 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

cope on what? I'm confused....your basically rebutting my position that this case is a joke & presidential overreach....you laid out your position....I laid out mine.....now your just driving the car into the wall and saying who "gives a fuck" anyway...well I guess my answer is you seem to?!?.....I guess not giving "a fuck" is Trump cope talk for yeah if this turns out be a case made out of rice paper like 'the libs/NYT's is saying....I can protect my ego my saying....well I dont care, never did.

 

Reminds me a bit of Epstein birthday card saga......which could be summed up as the five stages of coping with Trump being a deeply flawed person to find yourself defending:

 

(1) its fake news

(2) he'd never write that

(3) he basically barely knew Epstein

(4) the WSJ journal is toast cause he's suing them

 

.......roll the clock forward a few weeks and we get the birthday book......and all of sudden we get to the fifth stage of defending Trump grief

 

(5) who gives a fuck anyway that he wrote a stupid card anyway.....

 

to which everybody with a brains says then why didn't you say that at the start instead of vehemently denying its existence or even the possibility of its existence...that sure feels like cope to me....and I see it very regularly from MAGA

 

<<(5) who gives a fuck anyway that he wrote a stupid card anyway.....

 

to which everybody with a brains says then why didn't you say that at the start>>

 

Um, some of us did.  But when you refer to people as "MAGA" and all the conotations that go along with it, its hardly worth further discussion.

[LC]

2 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

what was clear was Biden/Harris admin lacked the will and political courage to act on the problem and we ended up in no small part with Trump because of it

 

What should Biden have done differently? Violate the constitution? 

 

The bipartisan bill was nowhere near perfect - it was in fact the essence of achieving something good, versus a perfect solution.

 

2 hours ago, Sweet said:

LOL,  why would the GOP give the Democrats a win on that, potentially undermine their election chances, and even worse, undermine their ability to enact much stricter measures.  

 

I thought Trump and his GOP cronies cared so much about the problem of illegal immigration? Guess they care more about denying the democrats a "win" versus solving the actual problem. 

 

C'est la vie sous le roi....

[Sweet]

12 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

cope on what? I'm confused....your basically rebutting my position that this case is a joke & presidential overreach....you laid out your position....I laid out mine.....now your just driving the car into the wall and saying who "gives a fuck" anyway...well I guess my answer is you seem to?!?.....I guess not giving "a fuck" is Trump cope talk for yeah if this turns out be a case made out of rice paper like 'the libs/NYT's is saying....I can protect my ego my saying....well I dont care, never did.

 

Reminds me a bit of Epstein birthday card saga......which could be summed up as the five stages of coping with Trump being a deeply flawed person to find yourself defending:

 

(1) its fake news

(2) he'd never write that

(3) he basically barely knew Epstein

(4) the WSJ journal is toast cause he's suing them

 

.......roll the clock forward a few weeks and we get the birthday book......and all of sudden we get to the fifth stage of defending Trump grief

 

(5) who gives a fuck anyway that he wrote a stupid card anyway.....

 

to which everybody with a brains says then why didn't you say that at the start instead of vehemently denying its existence or even the possibility of its existence...that sure feels like cope to me....and I see it very regularly from MAGA

 

You said just a page over it was a ‘anything but abuse of the office of President’.

 

When you were corrected, and when it was pointed out that it was actually a grand jury in the one of the liberal parts of the US you start bringing totally irrelevant BS.

 

Who gives a crap what the statistics are, or if the prosecutor was a rookie.

[Sweet]

1 minute ago, LC said:

thought Trump and his GOP cronies cared so much about the problem of illegal immigration? Guess they care more about denying the democrats a "win" versus solving the actual problem. 

 

C'est la vie sous le roi....

They do, which is why they couldn’t give Biden a win.  They wanted power to do it properly.  Not some crappy immigration deal which basically allowed 1.5 million a year before things got serious.

[LC]

1 minute ago, Sweet said:

They wanted power to do it properly

 

Oh yeah, seems like a real proper solution we've got right now.

 

Do I need to post more silly videos of ICE violating the constitution? Should I add Benny Hill music?  

[Sweet]

20 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Oh yeah, seems like a real proper solution we've got right now.

 

Do I need to post more silly videos of ICE violating the constitution? Should I add Benny Hill music?  

It’s working?

 

Better than before - that’s for sure.

 

Keep coping though with your Benny Hill music and memes.

[LC]

14 minutes ago, Sweet said:

It’s working?

 

Better than before - that’s for sure.

 

Keep coping though with your Benny Hill music and memes.

 

Enjoy being on the wrong side of history

 

 

 

[Gregmal]

55 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

<<(5) who gives a fuck anyway that he wrote a stupid card anyway.....

 

to which everybody with a brains says then why didn't you say that at the start>>

 

Um, some of us did.  But when you refer to people as "MAGA" and all the conotations that go along with it, its hardly worth further discussion.

Yup, that's why the dialogue disappears. Cant keep up with all these "things" that are super duper gigantic big deals to them....gossip and stories and the latest NYT specials....that Im indifferent to. The "birthday card" was just one out of hundreds(maybe thousands at this point)...didnt care at all about it before, then their story hit, they tried to make me care about it, but I still couldn't bring myself to, then a follow up story happens and again they circle back like I need to give a fuck...sorry, still dont lmfao. 

[dwy000]

3 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Yup, that's why the dialogue disappears. Cant keep up with all these "things" that are super duper gigantic big deals to them....gossip and stories and the latest NYT specials....that Im indifferent to. The "birthday card" was just one out of hundreds(maybe thousands at this point)...didnt care at all about it before, then their story hit, they tried to make me care about it, but I still couldn't bring myself to, then a follow up story happens and again they circle back like I need to give a fuck...sorry, still dont lmfao. 

Who is "they" that are trying to make you give a fuck?  

 

Pretty sure nobody in the media is putting out stories and going "did anyone check in on how Greg in Florida reacted?".  Their audience is the broader America.   And despite his best efforts to bury it, the Epstein files remain at the top of people's interest.  

[Sweet]

7 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Enjoy being on the wrong side of history

 

 

 

If I’m on the other side of you on matters like this, I’ll take my chances.
 

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

i think your letting Biden/Harris off very lightly - sure I applaud bipartisanship bills and all that and it was the correct thing to attempt....but before that and then after it failed....what was clear was Biden/Harris admin lacked the will and political courage to act on the problem and we ended up in no small part with Trump because of it.....whats the phrase perfect is the enemy of the good....a bipartisan bill on immigration would have been perfect....but it didn't happen and we got Trump instead

I believe this is the right take . Yes, the bipartisan bill failed but it’s still Biden’s job  things done and he dis not. I guess he thought either the Republicans would fall in line later or it wasn’t important enough. He was incorrect on both.

Edited September 29, 2025 by Spekulatius

[LC]

8 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I believe this is the right take . Yes, the bipartisan bill failed but it’s still Biden’s job  things done and he dis not. I guess he thought either the Republicans would fall in line later or it wasn’t important enough. He was incorrect on both.

 

That's fair but again what was the alternative?

Unlike Trump, Biden did not unconstitutionally deploy US troops and paramilitary goons on American soil. 

 

And again - the reason that bill failed was not because of Senate republicans - it was because of Trump's authoritarianism. 

Edited September 29, 2025 by LC

[LC]

13 minutes ago, Sweet said:

If I’m on the other side of you on matters like this, I’ll take my chances.

 

You know, nobody is forcing you to engage here any more or less than you want to.

But I assure you the choice to turn a political discussion into some personal comments reflects moreso on yourself than on me. 

[Sweet]

2 minutes ago, LC said:

That's fair but again what was the alternative?

Remember that wall you said Trump built?  Biden stopped the building of it.  It’s not fully built.

 

Remain in Mexico - rescinded by Biden.  Travel ban for certain countries - rescinded. 
 

What I’m trying to say is that the alternative wasn’t just to undo all these things because Trump.

[LC]

I can't even begin to express my disbelief at a half-built fence as a serious measure to control immigration. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Remain in Mexico - rescinded by Biden.  Travel ban for certain countries - rescinded. 

 

The policy was initially ended by the Biden administration, and after some legal battles, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on June 30, 2022, in Biden v. Texas, that the administration had the authority to end the policy. In December 2022, however, a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from ending the program. Remain in Mexico has been widely criticized by human rights organizations for exposing migrants to attacks while they awaited processing

 

 

3 minutes ago, Sweet said:

What I’m trying to say is that the alternative wasn’t just to undo all these things because Trump.

 

I am right there with you that Biden could've taken legal, constitutional, reasonable and effective steps to limit illegal migration. In fact that is what his bipartisan bill sought to do. It was torpedo'd by Trump and his sycophantic hold over republican senators and the GOP.

[Sweet]

7 minutes ago, LC said:

 

You know, nobody is forcing you to engage here any more or less than you want to.

But I assure you the choice to turn a political discussion into some personal comments reflects moreso on yourself than on me. 

 

Lol.

 

I can’t believe you’re flopped the victim card over such a bland comment.

 

I was only returning your serve LC regarding the ‘wrong side of history’ comment - remember?

 

I find your posts regularly wrong and or frequently deceptive, and it’s not crossing the ‘too personal’ line to say so.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2025 by Sweet

[LC]

As to who said what - I am happy to let the readers be the judge.

 

 

As to your point: again Biden actually complied with judicial decisions:

Biden resumes Remain in Mexico:

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/02/1060896872/u-s-will-resume-remain-in-mexico-policy-for-asylum-seekers

 

Biden expands Remain in Mexico:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/biden-remain-in-mexico-expanding

 

You love accusing me of being deceptive with little evidence, but I'm not representing a pandemic-era process as a status-quo activity to justify the unconstitutional ICE behavior in 2025.