Jury finds Trump guilty!

Ransom said:
Of course it was political. If anyone openly questions that, they're either delusional or lying.

It still may be true, however, that Trump is guilty of a felony. All other things being equal, it's better to find out he's a "justice-impacted individual" (to borrow the latest leftist Newspeak) before he's elected rather than after.

I won't be surprised if the conviction is appealed and overturned. Meanwhile, Republicans will do what Republicans do best: complain about the injustice but do nothing about it. Well, better luck with your next guy.
Click to expand...
If you look at the statute of limitations on some of these MISDEMEANORS, you'll see that BRAGG refused to prosecute them back then...then, all of a sudden, this once HONEST man decides he'll try to prosecute and backs the decision to try an go beyond his LEGAL boundaries and help the Democrats (and you've truly got to be an idiot if you say that the jury, judge, and Bragg aren't very partisan Democrats) try to convict Trump, a political foe. A local judge, jury, and DA??? This should NEVER have even come to trial.
 
Ransom said:
Well, then, why bother voting? "Explain" to the money in charge that it's not your obligation to vote for third-rate candidates. It's their responsibility to find first-rate ones.

Canadian elections are, as often as not, punishment for the lousy incumbent as it is a vote of confidence for the new guy. Occasionally, they get the message.
Click to expand...
We have a god-given opportunity to vote and let the "gods" that we aren't as dumb as they think....remember the American Revolution? It very well could happen again if the majority of Americans would stop being apathetic and act to save the Republic. It's happened in the past...people will eventually get fed up and fight back, and not just at the ballot box.
 
Bruh said:
12 jurors found him guilty
Click to expand...
Partisan Democrats (remember, this is Manhattan we're talking about, and Manhattans hate Trump) who have nothing to lose by falling in line with their Democratic families, friends, etc. to convict a political foe. This, if it were brought to trial legally instead of being bumped up to "felony" charges instead of the misdemeanors they are..and well beyond the statute of limitations. Remember, 12 jurors found OJ Simpson innocent when he was most likely not.
 
Ransom said:
If I ever do, it's cured by observing your politics.
Click to expand...
I see you're still the pot calling the kettle black. I used to think you were okay...guess I was wrong! LOL
Ransom said:
The advantage of Canada is that we actually have an alternative to Justin Trudeau. Of all the present candidates for president, there isn't one who is not, or was not, a liberal Democrat. The incumbent has lost his mind, his only serious contender is out of his mind, and the distant runner-up has brain worms eating his mind.

300 million people, and these are the best you could find?
Click to expand...
Strange that you say you actually have alternatives to Trudeau...I don't think you do...why don't you put your head back up your bottom and shut your yap. ;) (poke, poke!)
 
Bruh said:
I believe he slept with that woman. Donald Trump is not a morally faithful man. His wife definitely married him for the lifestyle he’s able to provide her.

In other words, she knew who she was marrying.

Proof for me is the life he’s lived his entire life. People don’t change.
Click to expand...
Even when she denied it.

IMG_0647.jpeg
 
subllibrm said:
If he didn’t have sex with her why did he pay her? If her story was false and she demanded money he should have turned her in for attempted extortion.
Click to expand...
You never heard of people trying to extort money and then having to sign NDAs to avoid salacious rumors? Explain this...

IMG_0646.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Bruh said:
I’m curious, do you believe he didn’t sleep with this woman?
Click to expand...
I'm curious. Do you believe spreading unsubstantiated (even denied) rumors is good?

On this forum, some chastize others for voting for Trump (as if that is unchristian)... and yet, they are part of a rumor mill. Christians need to be wise and not believe the evil side... certainly not repeating the evil side's treachery.
 
FSSL said:
Even when she denied it.
Click to expand...
And when she went on TV mere months later and said they had had a sexual relationship? Or when she published it in her book?

Meanwhile, Trump was denying the affair but admitting he paid her off.

Obviously both parties are talking out of both sides of their mouth, and aren't trustworthy.
 
FSSL said:
I'm curious. Do you believe spreading unsubstantiated (even denied) rumors is good?

On this forum, some chastize others for voting for Trump (as if that is unchristian)... and yet, they are part of a rumor mill. Christians need to be wise and not believe the evil side... certainly not repeating the evil side's treachery.
Click to expand...
Ok that’s fine. Following ur logic, 12 jurors found him guilty by the evidence that was given and that’s proof.

I’m voting for Trump buuuuut, I still believe Trump is Trump. He is an immoral dishonest man. And if someone believes he didn’t sleep with that woman lacks discernment, I’m sorry respectfully.
 
Ransom said:
And when she went on TV mere months later and said they had had a sexual relationship? Or when she published it in her book?

Meanwhile, Trump was denying the affair but admitting he paid her off.

Obviously both parties are talking out of both sides of their mouth, and aren't trustworthy.
Click to expand...
This is all I’m saying, you articulated it better than me.
 
Bruh said:
So, if we are going to be consistent, the 12 jurors found him guilty.
Click to expand...
Two things might be true at once:

1. Hypothetically, the timing of the Trump trial was political and intended to discredit him as a presidential candidate.

2. Also hypothetically, nothing happened during the trial that would result in a mistrial or a successful appeal on procedural grounds.

If #1 is true, then Trump's opponents have abused the legal process for their desired outcome, which is an injustice.

If #2 is true, then at least some of the complaints from Trump's supporters are that they did not receive their desired outcome, which is also an injustice.

I tend, in my own opinion, toward #1 being true #2 being false to some extent, but I've got nothing riding on either one. Legally, I think Trump will end up being vindicated. Nonetheless, he's still a jerk and a poor pick for president.
 
Ransom said:
Meanwhile, Trump was denying the affair but admitting he paid her off..
Click to expand...
Paying a NonDisclosure is not admitting fault.

Twice she signed affidavits denying the encounter.

Until there is proof otherwise, I won't believe something just because I want to.
 
Bruh said:
Ok that’s fine. Following ur logic, 12 jurors found him guilty by the evidence that was given and that’s proof.

I’m voting for Trump buuuuut, I still believe Trump is Trump. He is an immoral dishonest man. And if someone believes he didn’t sleep with that woman lacks discernment, I’m sorry respectfully.
Click to expand...
Discernment requires facts and proof. You have neither about Stormy.

The jurors were told they could infer what they wanted (lack of evidence and proof) of some unstated crime.
 
FSSL said:
Neither of which are legal documents.
Click to expand...
Ok. But can you see and or admit that both people we are discussing are proven to be very very dishonest people?

If so, then to me, in this situation neither can be trusted because than they are both lying about details and or leaving details out.

So at this point, who do you believe?

For example, there are men I work with that if they tell me something about a machine I will believe every word. But if they are telling me a story that happened to them and or someone else, I do not believe one word they are saying.
 
Bruh said:
Ok. But can you see and or admit that both people we are discussing are proven to be very very dishonest people?
Click to expand...
On this matter: AFAIK: the only dishonest person is Stormy. She is the one who has been inconsistent.

Bruh said:
So at this point, who do you believe?
Click to expand...
Trump... until it is proven otherwise. He has been consistent in his testimony regarding Stormy.
 
Bruh said:
Ok. But can you see and or admit that both people we are discussing are proven to be very very dishonest people?

If so, then to me, in this situation neither can be trusted because than they are both lying about details and or leaving details out.

So at this point, who do you believe?

For example, there are men I work with that if they tell me something about a machine I will believe every word. But if they are telling me a story that happened to them and or someone else, I do not believe one word they are saying.
Click to expand...
Why do you need to stick your nose into a private affair? The fact that the trial itself was a joke and the fact the DA took a misdemeanor past the statutes of limitations and then turned what he claimed to be bad paperwork into 34 felonies in order to sentence Trump to prison for a hundred years should be enough for you and everybody else to shut up and mind your own business. You are no better than the one you are condemning or anybody else. The trial was a sham and you know it. You aren't one bit in interested in justice.

I listen to Ray Comfort witnessing all the time and he always asks the question, "Have you ever told a lie in your life?" You are also guilty of lying in your past just like the rest of us. So why would I be wrong in saying, "I do not believe one word you are saying?"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top