Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Exactly.

The thread was about the "followers" of Jesus who now consider him "weak", although, one go their ilk did come up with this image. They sure do like their Jesus to be a blue eyed American - get out of here with that dark skinned jewish guy crap. These guys better hope Jesus doesn't decide now it the time to come back, I think he'd be more pissed than when he was at the temple kicking out the money changers, another thing today's GOP would probably be against. The image makes me sick to think there are people who think this way. If they move away from Jesus I would think he'd be more pleased with those that remain and follow his words. If there is any justice at all I hope the artist and anyone who buys a print or made a profit from it is going to pay for it in the end. I can't say how I really feel as I'd then need to go to confession. Damn, now I thought it so have to go anyways, but I'll still hold my tongue. 
 

Great, Russ is probably puking to death right now.   How in the world did you come across this image Jim?  

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

To what end, though?  Certainly not to benefit Biden.  Trump is probably the only GOP candidate that Biden can beat in a presidential election.  If I were Biden and wanted to play politics, I'd want to discourage Trump's prosecution in the hopes that he becomes the GOP nominee. I don't see how this prosecution benefits democrats. If anything, it benefits the other GOP candidates for the nomination.

Not according to polling data so far.  Sure, polls are limited, but it is not even close.  

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

A couple of points:

Decisions argued by attorneys get overturned by SCOTUS as a matter of course. That doesn't mean the attorneys were politically motivated by their prosecutions. Nor does it necessarily mean SCOTUS looked at and decided the issue based upon the merits of the case but rather, the constitutionality of the application of the law in those cases.

Trump's own actions, in the documents case and in the elections fraud case have resulted in his prosecutions, period/full stop. In the former, all he needed to do is turn over the government documents as he said he would and he had more than ample time to do so and if he did, we wouldn't even be discussing this now. In the latter, the initiation of the fake electors scheme, the inane actions to decertify the popular votes in contested states and send it back for recertification by a receptive political party in the state legislatures combined with pressuring his vice president and various elected secretaries of states to do essentially the same thing are his own doings.

"Decisions argued by attorneys get overturned by SCOTUS as a matter of course. That doesn't mean the attorneys were politically motivated by their prosecutions. Nor does it necessarily mean SCOTUS looked at and decided the issue based upon the merits of the case but rather, the constitutionality of the application of the law in those cases." 

Agreed that being overturned does not imply political motivation.  I would disagree on the "merits" argument.  It is true that the Supreme Court determined the constitutionality of the application of the law in the McDonnell case.   They did not apply the facts to the properly interpreted statute, and maybe this is all you are saying.  They never do.  Instead, the Court sent the case back for further proceedings, while unanimously saying to Smith (paraphrase), "it is unconstitutional to apply the bribery statute the way you did at trial, go back and apply the statute properly." 

You know what happened next of course.  The DOJ dropped all charges.  So the DOJ itself decided the case was meritless under the proper interpretation of the bribery statute.  

This does not mean that McDonnell was a boy scout!  Maybe he is/was a scoundrel.  But he did not violate the federal bribery statute, properly interpreted under the constitution, as proved by the DOJ's own decision to drop the case. 

"Trump's own actions, in the documents case and in the elections fraud case have resulted in his prosecutions, period/full stop. In the former, all he needed to do is turn over the government documents as he said he would and he had more than ample time to do so and if he did, we wouldn't even be discussing this now. In the latter, the initiation of the fake electors scheme, the inane actions to decertify the popular votes in contested states and send it back for recertification by a receptive political party in the state legislatures combined with pressuring his vice president and various elected secretaries of states to do essentially the same thing are his own doings."

I agree, but for the "full stop."   These prosecutions can be Trump's fault and politically motivated (in some part) both at the same time.  I  personally would weigh the "Trump's fault" aspect much greater than the "political aspect."  In other words, I do not think these are anything like ginned up charges made by a weaponized DOJ for pure political advantage and retribution.  I hope I made that clear yesterday.  On the other hand, I do not believe that Garland's decision to hire Smith and his decision to proceed with various prosecutions was made without any political considerations at all.  

Have a great weekend! Jim

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

Did anyone else notice the smirk on Jesus's face?  It gives me the impression that he's about to strangle him.

Funny!

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

I'm not sure what you mean here. If Trump is prosecuted and found guilty of a felony (assuming it happens before the election), he won't be the GOP nominee. So of course it helps the other potential (GOP) candidates.

I'd hope that Trump would not be the nominee if he is convicted, but I am not confident.   All I was saying in my earlier post is that we might have expected Trump's polling to fall and the other R candidates polling to rise as these indictments have been announced.   But no movement in the polling has occurred.

Since no movement in Trump's polling, or his rival's polling, has occured after the indictments then:  (A) The people being polled don't know about the indictments (seems unlikely), or (B) The people being polled don't support Trump any less after indictments, or (C) the polling sucks.   Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I think you meant to say "AN ALWAYS DEMOCRAT".  

One has to actually have been a Republican at one time to be a FORMER Repub.  

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that Brian is telling the truth about his status as a former Republican.  Have you read Brian's short bio here on Astromart?  I'd be shocked if someone with that sterling bio of service in the military and defense industries were not a Republican at one time.  Too bad fools like you and the candidates you favor have cost the R party solid citizens like Brian.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"It boggles the mind to think that Traitor Trump still has that much support, but here we are."

My feelings exactly. In listening to the comments of Republicans, primarily older ones interviewed on MSM, "it's all political"! Or, "they just don't want Trump to run again."

Nevermind the countless hours of evidence reviewed by grand juries, or even a thought that their proceedings actually occurred. 
These people seem to be among the most flippant of individuals that America can ever offer up...

Hi Rod: 

I think you, Brian, and James  are all making good points here.  But remember that the media outlets you favor (CNN mostly, right? Maybe MSNBC too?) have a bias against Republicans and I don't doubt that they will go out of their way to air comments from willfully blind Republicans rather than air comments from never-Trump RINOs like me.  Can't blame them.  Media must cater to their own batch of viewers.

Even so, the polls have not moved much and that is horrible in my opinion.  It is really not the indictments that dismay me the most.  It is the support Trump still had after the whole public and indisputable "Stop the Steal" lie and his public behavior after the election that should have entirely collapsed his support, among those who still supported him, whether or not his behavior ultimately turns out to be criminal after a fair trial.   

Still, I am pretty sure that Trump has not expanded his support from 2020, so I'm not too worried about Trump Presidency 2.0.   If the R's are destroyed as a brand for a few cycles, that is just the way it goes.   Jim 

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Trump bleated:

"A Large, Complex, Detailed but Irrefutable REPORT on the Presidential Election Fraud which took place in Georgia is almost complete & will be presented by me at a major News Conference at 11:00 A.M. on Monday of next week in Bedminster, New Jersey. Based on the results of this CONCLUSIVE Report, all charges should be dropped against me & others - There will be a complete EXONERATION! They never went after those that Rigged the Election. They only went after those that fought to find the RIGGERS!"

We have to wait a little longer, until Monday morning, but finally Trump is going to provide the evidence they've been promising since November 2019 that proves election fraud that will immediately EXONERATE him of all charges. 


If it's that good maybe he ought to save it for court?




 

We should set up a pool where participants make predictions as to what happens next Monday.   I'm on the fence between no-show and incomprehensible report full of lies and innuendo.   

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Hell, Jim Brown still claims to be a Republican and he's about as useless as tits on a warthog when it comes to Defending the US Constitution against corrupt actors.  He's perfectly fine with the weaponization of the DOJ, and couldn't give a shit if all of these acts by the corrupt destroy the nation and cause the election system to become nothing better than one found in 3rd world banana republic.  

To him it is ALL worth it to satiate the deep visceral hatred he has in his soul for Donald Trump. 

I object!  Some of this diatribe is completely untrue.  Tits are extremely useful on a warthog.  Otherwise, how would baby warthogs nurse!  I suppose you think mommy warthogs buy formula at the grocery store?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V6L2RBCtRE

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

 

And is this your way of avoiding answering my straightforward questions to you?

I'll put them up again.

Tell me James, did you ask any of those babies, the 3 month gestational period ones, the 5 month gestational period ones, if they minded at all that a doctor injects poison into the womb where they reside, and then proceeds to dismember their bodies with a pair of forceps and then suck their remains out with a vacuum and toss them in a biological trash can?

Did you ask those babies what they thought, or ask them if they felt any pain as they were killed in the womb?

I'll just wait for your reply.  

Will it take long?  

I don't believe you actually care about babies or babies in the womb.  Not at all.

Abortion is of course a wedge issue and you simply follow your hero's lead, staking out an entirely unbelievable pro-life stance because such is necessary to maintain a pure "right wing" persona.  I am sure it is a lie.  Your refusal to grasp James's point that abortion is a horrible reality and even a medical necessity for some women proves you lack the basic entry-level empathy for anyone to believe you actually care about unborn children. 

This is one of the most odious of DJT's and your own many odious traits.  You talk as if you are pro-life, but it is entirely clear from his actions and your posts that he and you have no genuine affection or empathy for women, for women's unique challenges, or for babies.   

It is sad that so many sincerely pro-life people fall for Trump's preposterous posing on this issue.  I have no idea if you are a rapist like DJT is.   You are certainly a misogynist of Trumpian proportions.  I can not imagine taunting a man by asking if "his pussy hurts."  Not because this is a laughably  ineffective taunt, at least after junior high.  No, I would never use this taunt because it is premised upon an epic level of disdain for women.  Any of us who are marginally adult and bonded though love to a wife or daughter we respect would never resort to that particular taunt, because it is indisputably grounded in irredeemable disdain for our co-equal female partners in life.   In Trump's world, and possibly in yours, women are useful decorations who exist primarily to gratify male egos and male libido.   And you expect us to believe you are pro-life?

Jim