2024 Field

Honestly it kind of feels like a win win situation for me because a second Trump term isnt going to go well. But of course, everything bad will be someone elses fault and everything good will be because of Trump in the stooges minds.
 
nsacpi said:
The takeaway is don't run for high office if you've spent a lifetime criming. Keep a low profile and enjoy the spoils.
Click to expand...

The "crimes" aren't really crimes. At least none that actually have victims. They are targeting any minuscule misstep he has made with the maximum possible prosecution. It's political corruption at it's finest. Why is that so hard for you to admit?
 
Carp said:
The "crimes" aren't really crimes. At least none that actually have victims.
Click to expand...

fraud
/frôd/
noun
1)
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
"he was convicted of fraud"

2)
a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
"mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds"
////

Civil fraud
Although elements may vary by jurisdiction and the specific allegations made by a plaintiff who files a lawsuit that alleged fraud, typical elements of a fraud case in the United States are that:

Somebody misrepresents a material fact in order to obtain action or forbearance by another person;
The other person relies upon the misrepresentation; and
The other person suffers injury as a result of the act or forbearance taken in reliance upon the misrepresentation.
To establish a civil claim of fraud, most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element of a fraud claim be pleaded with particularity and be proved by a preponderance of the evidence,[38] meaning that it is more likely than not that the fraud occurred. Some jurisdictions impose a higher evidentiary standard, such as Washington State's requirement that the elements of fraud be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very probable evidence),[39] or Pennsylvania's requirement that common law fraud be proved by clear and convincing evidence.[40]

The measure of damages in fraud cases is normally computed using one of two rules:[41]

The "benefit of bargain" rule, which allows for recovery of damages in the amount of the difference between the value of the property had it been as represented and its actual value;
Out-of-pocket loss, which allows for the recovery of damages in the amount of the difference between the value of what was given and the value of what was received.
Special damages may be allowed if shown to have been proximately caused by defendant's fraud and the damage amounts are proved with specificity.

Some jurisdictions may permit a plaintiff in a fraud case to seek punitive or exemplary damages
////////
 
Carp said:
The "crimes" aren't really crimes. At least none that actually have victims.
Click to expand...


A bedtime story for your kids and MAGA
relatives…

Once upon a time, there were two businessmen, Don and Bob.

Both had roughly the same amount of stuff. They both wanted loans to get more stuff and grow their businesses.

Bob went to the bank for a loan. He told them how much stuff he had. The bank said they couldn’t loan Bob all the money he wanted coz he didn’t have enough stuff as collateral. Bob was sad and had to give up his dream of growing his business.

Don, on the other hand, went to the bank and exaggerated how much stuff he had. By a lot. Don was a slick talker and had false paperwork to show he had a lot more stuff than he really did. The bank felt more comfortable giving Don the loan, coz they believed he had enough stuff to offer as collateral. Don ended up getting more stuff and living large.

Who is the victim?

Not the bank. One could argue should’ve done their homework on slick-talking Don.

It’s Bob.

It’s the thousands of Bobs who follow the rules and don’t lie and cheat their way into a better life.

Who protects people like Bob?

Who makes sure the rules are fair for all?

The Southern District of New ****ing York, that’s who.

The End.
 
Carp said:
If you are claiming you haven't made misogynistic remarks or bragged about sex at any point in your life then you are either a liar or you live in a monastery away from women.
Click to expand...

or, a gentleman
who never tells

I avoid your description when making friends or acquaintances.
Do I know some or have had to do business with some ?
Of course
My experience in business the least trustworthy partner is the man you describe
and pretty much write off your example of everyman as an asshole and walk on

There have been a number of men on this board that fit the man I describe
Only a few are left

As we devolved into name calling and school yard taunts
which I view in the same vein as the " everyman" you defined
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
or, a gentleman
who never tells

I avoid your description when making friends or acquaintances.
Do I know some or have had to do business with some ?
Of course
My experience in business the least trustworthy partner is the man you describe
and pretty much write off your example of everyman as an asshole and walk on

There have been a number of men on this board that fit the man I describe
Only a few are left

As we devolved into name calling and school yard taunts
which I view in the same vein as the " everyman" you defined
Click to expand...

Lol, sure thing fella.
 
Carp said:
If you are claiming you haven't made misogynistic remarks or bragged about sex at any point in your life then you arev either a liar or you live in a monastery away from women.
Click to expand...


We would probably disagree about what is and isnt musogynistic remark but I dont talk to other dudes about my sex life or theirs.
 
I also do not speak about my sex life with others but many of my close friends would. Pretending it’s rare of damning is childish.
 
I dont doubt people do it, but if you are ever in legal trouble for anything, dont say in the deposition that you could do it and get away with it "unfortunately, or fortunately". Any unbiased person is going to read real heavily into that "fortunately".
 
Should have happened earlier. But if thangs had moved faster y'all would be squealing about how due process was being trampled upon.
 
nsacpi said:
Should have happened earlier. But if thangs had moved faster y'all would be squealing about how due process was being trampled upon.
Click to expand...

Your window to get him out of the way was the 3-6 month period right after J6. Once you didn't get that done it was inevitable what was going to happen. Enjoy November.
 
Carp said:
The "crimes" aren't really crimes.
Click to expand...

We still have a first-rate independent judicial system. I for one am willing to leave it to that system to sort out whether the crimes he is charged with are in fact crimes.

At the apex of that judicial system sits the Supreme Court. With a majority of six conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents. If lower courts make any mistakes I have confidence the Supreme Court will reverse those mistakes.
 
nsacpi said:
We still have a first-rate independent judicial system. I for one am willing to leave it to that system to sort out whether the crimes he is charged with are in fact crimes.

At the apex of that judicial system sits the Supreme Court. With a majority of six conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents. If lower courts make any mistakes I have confidence the Supreme Court will reverse those mistakes.
Click to expand...

The point is that he shouldn't have to go through this. Same BS nonsense as Russia Collusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top