Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: Quote Originally Posted by scooby-doos: Stu.. You put an ordinary joe instead of Trump, none of this exists. It's purely horsecrap and political and most realize that. An ordinary Joe would be serving time. They wouldn't though. Emphatically, they wouldn't. Even if that woman comes forward within the statute of limitations, no criminal court would evet draw charges forva case where there's zero evidence. Are you trying to imply that Trump got preferential treatment in a New York court? You can't be serious. Preferential treatment??? Nah, the jury found that he committed sexual abuse in the Caroll case & he's a 32 time convicted felon. With this record, a regular Joe would be in prison.
One was white collar crime. There are dudes getting leniency for gun charges. Armed robberies. As far as the other thing, when there is zero evidence, the court won't even bring charges. If the E.Jean Carroll thing was a criminal matter, it never goes to court. He's never even charged. She gets exposed as being an unhinged, pathological liar.
TIME TO BRING BACK THE OBAMA CAGES!
1
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1:
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: Quote Originally Posted by scooby-doos: Stu.. You put an ordinary joe instead of Trump, none of this exists. It's purely horsecrap and political and most realize that. An ordinary Joe would be serving time. They wouldn't though. Emphatically, they wouldn't. Even if that woman comes forward within the statute of limitations, no criminal court would evet draw charges forva case where there's zero evidence. Are you trying to imply that Trump got preferential treatment in a New York court? You can't be serious. Preferential treatment??? Nah, the jury found that he committed sexual abuse in the Caroll case & he's a 32 time convicted felon. With this record, a regular Joe would be in prison.
One was white collar crime. There are dudes getting leniency for gun charges. Armed robberies. As far as the other thing, when there is zero evidence, the court won't even bring charges. If the E.Jean Carroll thing was a criminal matter, it never goes to court. He's never even charged. She gets exposed as being an unhinged, pathological liar.
-- DJT Sure, diss our closest ally. You're smart enough to know that's not a good idea.
Midnight1 is right. US is stronger with allies instead of none. NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters.
1
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1:
-- DJT Sure, diss our closest ally. You're smart enough to know that's not a good idea.
Midnight1 is right. US is stronger with allies instead of none. NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters.
Quote NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...........
0
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Quote NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...........
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: -- DJT Sure, diss our closest ally. You're smart enough to know that's not a good idea. Midnight1 is right. US is stronger with allies instead of none. NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters.
Successful in that it allows us to better defend other countries. It is a very one-sided alliance.
TIME TO BRING BACK THE OBAMA CAGES!
0
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: -- DJT Sure, diss our closest ally. You're smart enough to know that's not a good idea. Midnight1 is right. US is stronger with allies instead of none. NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters.
Successful in that it allows us to better defend other countries. It is a very one-sided alliance.
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: -- DJT Sure, diss our closest ally. You're smart enough to know that's not a good idea. Midnight1 is right. US is stronger with allies instead of none. NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters.
And how is the opposite true. Alliances like NATO, the Paris Accord, etc base contributions on GDP. It will always fall to us to fund these things, and we really don't see return on our investment. It's time we rethink out alliances. We'll provide military support to countries who present some strategic advantage to us, usually based solely on their geographic region. What we shouldn't be is the worlds military. It's a back breaking expense and it doesn't make us safer. It outs us more at risk by antagonizing other military super powers.
Honest question. Do you believe supporting Ukraine made us safer, or more at risk?
TIME TO BRING BACK THE OBAMA CAGES!
0
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: -- DJT Sure, diss our closest ally. You're smart enough to know that's not a good idea. Midnight1 is right. US is stronger with allies instead of none. NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters.
And how is the opposite true. Alliances like NATO, the Paris Accord, etc base contributions on GDP. It will always fall to us to fund these things, and we really don't see return on our investment. It's time we rethink out alliances. We'll provide military support to countries who present some strategic advantage to us, usually based solely on their geographic region. What we shouldn't be is the worlds military. It's a back breaking expense and it doesn't make us safer. It outs us more at risk by antagonizing other military super powers.
Honest question. Do you believe supporting Ukraine made us safer, or more at risk?
@Midnight1 "These are two separate cases & you should know that." I see..so he's a 66 time convicted felon ?...OK!
Are you dense? Seriously, is there something wrong with you? There were 2 cases. First, was the assault case that rewarded millions to the plaintiff. The 2nd was his hush money trial where he was convicted on 34 counts. Got it now?
You see what you did here? You did exactly what Wallstreet has been trying to get you to stop doing. Now, I'm sure you're playing dumb like "Midnight, what do you mean?" Sadly, you know exactly what I mean because you pull this shit all the time.
I may be wrong but I don't think anyone else in the forum was confused by my original statement. No, but not you. No,no, no..not you.
So I'm gonna leave it right here. I believe you are now straight on the topic.
1
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
@Midnight1 "These are two separate cases & you should know that." I see..so he's a 66 time convicted felon ?...OK!
Are you dense? Seriously, is there something wrong with you? There were 2 cases. First, was the assault case that rewarded millions to the plaintiff. The 2nd was his hush money trial where he was convicted on 34 counts. Got it now?
You see what you did here? You did exactly what Wallstreet has been trying to get you to stop doing. Now, I'm sure you're playing dumb like "Midnight, what do you mean?" Sadly, you know exactly what I mean because you pull this shit all the time.
I may be wrong but I don't think anyone else in the forum was confused by my original statement. No, but not you. No,no, no..not you.
So I'm gonna leave it right here. I believe you are now straight on the topic.
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson: Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: -- DJT Sure, diss our closest ally. You're smart enough to know that's not a good idea. Midnight1 is right. US is stronger with allies instead of none. NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters. Successful in that it allows us to better defend other countries. It is a very one-sided alliance.
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson: Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: -- DJT Sure, diss our closest ally. You're smart enough to know that's not a good idea. Midnight1 is right. US is stronger with allies instead of none. NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters. And how is the opposite true. Alliances like NATO, the Paris Accord, etc base contributions on GDP. It will always fall to us to fund these things, and we really don't see return on our investment. It's time we rethink out alliances. We'll provide military support to countries who present some strategic advantage to us, usually based solely on their geographic region. What we shouldn't be is the worlds military. It's a back breaking expense and it doesn't make us safer. It outs us more at risk by antagonizing other military super powers. Honest question. Do you believe supporting Ukraine made us safer, or more at risk?
Stu, would love to chime in here.
Since we are the most powerful nation in the world, you are certainly right. We've been the world's Sheriff for decades & will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. Our RIO comes from the armament sales to the countries in need or at war generating revenue for American companies who also are supposed to pay their taxes which is a totally different subject. I believe we would rather be the supplier of arms rather than another country deciding who gets what arms/technology. To answer your last question, I believe we are no more safer than we are at risk. We will always be targets because of who we are, our beliefs & our cultures. I'm a big proponent of Defense spending but not the horror stories about the waste & the funny business that takes place when contracts are signed.
1
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson: Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: -- DJT Sure, diss our closest ally. You're smart enough to know that's not a good idea. Midnight1 is right. US is stronger with allies instead of none. NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters. Successful in that it allows us to better defend other countries. It is a very one-sided alliance.
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson: Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: -- DJT Sure, diss our closest ally. You're smart enough to know that's not a good idea. Midnight1 is right. US is stronger with allies instead of none. NATO has proven to be the most successful defensive alliance in history. But deluded Trump sees allies as no better than enemies. He thinks the world is ripping off the US when the opposite is true. As a demagogue, he appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of voters. And how is the opposite true. Alliances like NATO, the Paris Accord, etc base contributions on GDP. It will always fall to us to fund these things, and we really don't see return on our investment. It's time we rethink out alliances. We'll provide military support to countries who present some strategic advantage to us, usually based solely on their geographic region. What we shouldn't be is the worlds military. It's a back breaking expense and it doesn't make us safer. It outs us more at risk by antagonizing other military super powers. Honest question. Do you believe supporting Ukraine made us safer, or more at risk?
Stu, would love to chime in here.
Since we are the most powerful nation in the world, you are certainly right. We've been the world's Sheriff for decades & will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. Our RIO comes from the armament sales to the countries in need or at war generating revenue for American companies who also are supposed to pay their taxes which is a totally different subject. I believe we would rather be the supplier of arms rather than another country deciding who gets what arms/technology. To answer your last question, I believe we are no more safer than we are at risk. We will always be targets because of who we are, our beliefs & our cultures. I'm a big proponent of Defense spending but not the horror stories about the waste & the funny business that takes place when contracts are signed.
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim: @Midnight1 "These are two separate cases & you should know that." I see..so he's a 66 time convicted felon ?...OK!
Are you dense? Seriously, is there something wrong with you? There were 2 cases. First, was the assault case that rewarded millions to the plaintiff. The 2nd was his hush money trial where he was convicted on 34 counts. Got it now? You see what you did here? You did exactly what Wallstreet has been trying to get you to stop doing. Now, I'm sure you're playing dumb like "Midnight, what do you mean?" Sadly, you know exactly what I mean because you pull this shit all the time. I may be wrong but I don't think anyone else in the forum was confused by my original statement. No, but not you. No,no, no..not you. So I'm gonna leave it right here. I believe you are now straight on the topic.
Midnight 1,
Calm down and try to stay cool..no need to put down someone when we are having a discussion..
..and No .,I don't have it now...where did he get charged the 32 time conviction ?
I'am only going by your own words below...
Midnight1 posted statement
Nah, the jury found that he committed sexual abuse in the Caroll case & he's a 32 time convicted felon.
Now ,if there is something incorrect in that statement ..just correct it and we can move on ..
0
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1:
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim: @Midnight1 "These are two separate cases & you should know that." I see..so he's a 66 time convicted felon ?...OK!
Are you dense? Seriously, is there something wrong with you? There were 2 cases. First, was the assault case that rewarded millions to the plaintiff. The 2nd was his hush money trial where he was convicted on 34 counts. Got it now? You see what you did here? You did exactly what Wallstreet has been trying to get you to stop doing. Now, I'm sure you're playing dumb like "Midnight, what do you mean?" Sadly, you know exactly what I mean because you pull this shit all the time. I may be wrong but I don't think anyone else in the forum was confused by my original statement. No, but not you. No,no, no..not you. So I'm gonna leave it right here. I believe you are now straight on the topic.
Midnight 1,
Calm down and try to stay cool..no need to put down someone when we are having a discussion..
..and No .,I don't have it now...where did he get charged the 32 time conviction ?
I'am only going by your own words below...
Midnight1 posted statement
Nah, the jury found that he committed sexual abuse in the Caroll case & he's a 32 time convicted felon.
Now ,if there is something incorrect in that statement ..just correct it and we can move on ..
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim: @Midnight1 "These are two separate cases & you should know that." I see..so he's a 66 time convicted felon ?...OK! Are you dense? Seriously, is there something wrong with you? There were 2 cases. First, was the assault case that rewarded millions to the plaintiff. The 2nd was his hush money trial where he was convicted on 34 counts. Got it now? You see what you did here? You did exactly what Wallstreet has been trying to get you to stop doing. Now, I'm sure you're playing dumb like "Midnight, what do you mean?" Sadly, you know exactly what I mean because you pull this shit all the time. I may be wrong but I don't think anyone else in the forum was confused by my original statement. No, but not you. No,no, no..not you. So I'm gonna leave it right here. I believe you are now straight on the topic. Midnight 1, Calm down and try to stay cool..no need to put down someone when we are having a discussion.. ..and No .,I don't have it now...where did he get charged the 32 time conviction ? I'am only going by your own words below... Midnight1 posted statement Nah, the jury found that he committed sexual abuse in the Caroll case & he's a 32 time convicted felon. Now ,if there is something incorrect in that statement ..just correct it and we can move on ..
It's best if you just go away.
1
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim: @Midnight1 "These are two separate cases & you should know that." I see..so he's a 66 time convicted felon ?...OK! Are you dense? Seriously, is there something wrong with you? There were 2 cases. First, was the assault case that rewarded millions to the plaintiff. The 2nd was his hush money trial where he was convicted on 34 counts. Got it now? You see what you did here? You did exactly what Wallstreet has been trying to get you to stop doing. Now, I'm sure you're playing dumb like "Midnight, what do you mean?" Sadly, you know exactly what I mean because you pull this shit all the time. I may be wrong but I don't think anyone else in the forum was confused by my original statement. No, but not you. No,no, no..not you. So I'm gonna leave it right here. I believe you are now straight on the topic. Midnight 1, Calm down and try to stay cool..no need to put down someone when we are having a discussion.. ..and No .,I don't have it now...where did he get charged the 32 time conviction ? I'am only going by your own words below... Midnight1 posted statement Nah, the jury found that he committed sexual abuse in the Caroll case & he's a 32 time convicted felon. Now ,if there is something incorrect in that statement ..just correct it and we can move on ..
Don't you know you don't belong here, there's other posts for you to discuss your opinions that others view as the same as yours. According to WallStreetCrow
0
@SarasotaSlim
Don't you know you don't belong here, there's other posts for you to discuss your opinions that others view as the same as yours. According to WallStreetCrow
@SarasotaSlim Don't you know you don't belong here, there's other posts for you to discuss your opinions that others view as the same as yours. According to WallStreetCrow
Thank You. Biggie...........However,, it's not of any value to me ...to talk with someone with the same believes and Ideologies..I want someone from the other corner..I don't want to change them...I just want to show how ridiculous they really are ...
It's like in school football games ..when your side was across from the other team...you crush them by yelling louder..
0
Quote Originally Posted by BigGame90:
@SarasotaSlim Don't you know you don't belong here, there's other posts for you to discuss your opinions that others view as the same as yours. According to WallStreetCrow
Thank You. Biggie...........However,, it's not of any value to me ...to talk with someone with the same believes and Ideologies..I want someone from the other corner..I don't want to change them...I just want to show how ridiculous they really are ...
It's like in school football games ..when your side was across from the other team...you crush them by yelling louder..
WELL ..AT LEAST WE ARE NOT STROKING THE MODERATOR.....
POSTED BY MIDNIGHT1:
Are you dense? Seriously, is there something wrong with you? There were 2 cases. First, was the assault case that rewarded millions to the plaintiff. The 2nd was his hush money trial where he was convicted on 34 counts. Got it now?
You see what you did here? You did exactly what Wallstreet has been trying to get you to stop doing. Now, I'm sure you're playing dumb like "Midnight, what do you mean?" Sadly, you know exactly what I mean because you pull this shit all the time.
I may be wrong but I don't think anyone else in the forum was confused by my original statement. No, but not you. No,no, no..not you.
So I'm gonna leave it right here. I believe you are now straight on the topic.
REALLY MIDNIGHT1 ...HE HAS ENOUGH CHEERLEADERS ALREADY..
0
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1:
So glad you have each other to stroke.
WELL ..AT LEAST WE ARE NOT STROKING THE MODERATOR.....
POSTED BY MIDNIGHT1:
Are you dense? Seriously, is there something wrong with you? There were 2 cases. First, was the assault case that rewarded millions to the plaintiff. The 2nd was his hush money trial where he was convicted on 34 counts. Got it now?
You see what you did here? You did exactly what Wallstreet has been trying to get you to stop doing. Now, I'm sure you're playing dumb like "Midnight, what do you mean?" Sadly, you know exactly what I mean because you pull this shit all the time.
I may be wrong but I don't think anyone else in the forum was confused by my original statement. No, but not you. No,no, no..not you.
So I'm gonna leave it right here. I believe you are now straight on the topic.
REALLY MIDNIGHT1 ...HE HAS ENOUGH CHEERLEADERS ALREADY..
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
