doublejj
Well-Known Member
Thump is a serial sexual predator ....he belongs behind bars
Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he supports Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang
- Thread starter doublejj
- Start date
topcat
Well-Known Member
Awe, Jayzus! Iz dis wut we gots now? Dis iz wut we er up aginst? Shewt! "Trust me",Trump is one brain cell short of an Amoeba and identifies as a pumpkin
But that man speaks his mind right or wrong and gat dangit I respect him for that. I know exactly what hes thinking. And what hes doing. Hes a shitty business man running a country. I know exactly what to expect from him.
Yow!, sez Zippy!
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
Lol just reading the last few pgs of commentary, if someone asked me why they say liberals are pretentious pompous ass hats I'd just direct them here.. Lmao, many of you may be fundamentally correct but what does that mean if you can't explain where you're coming from without ridicule? If you possess all the knowledge in the world but lord over the ones that don't, what good does it do your cause? Believe it not what you want to happen, will actually only happen when people decide to vote for it. Instead of attack and belittle the opposition because as you love to quote most likely are "poorly educated", why not use a little bit of that brain power, understand the imbalance of knowledge and adjust your message accordingly? That's called being intelligent. Not bludgeoning someone to death with how stupid they are when they don't see your particular viewpoint yet on an issue. All you've done is create an even greater opponent to your cause, who is now even more less inclined to reason with reality.. Smh.. All you IQs need to start applying some of it in a realistic sense...
You're careful with what you say around blacks, or the pronouns you use referring to sexes, but I guess the "poorly educated" don't get afforded these sensativities. You talk about the inequality in the schools, and poverty areas leading to lower education rates and policy about how to change, but when confronted with an individual who may fit this description, have nothing but seething contempt despite you crying about the problems on forums..
And @abandonconflict lol you amuse me, she may be a fine president, time will tell, lots of scandals with any candidate, she was late on supporting MJ (how do you do that being a bay area Californian!?), and to me, based on her record and how she's conducted herself, I find her lacking in my assessment to be president.
You're careful with what you say around blacks, or the pronouns you use referring to sexes, but I guess the "poorly educated" don't get afforded these sensativities. You talk about the inequality in the schools, and poverty areas leading to lower education rates and policy about how to change, but when confronted with an individual who may fit this description, have nothing but seething contempt despite you crying about the problems on forums..
And @abandonconflict lol you amuse me, she may be a fine president, time will tell, lots of scandals with any candidate, she was late on supporting MJ (how do you do that being a bay area Californian!?), and to me, based on her record and how she's conducted herself, I find her lacking in my assessment to be president.
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
er..wait what do you mean excessive masturbation?!
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
imo MAGA means "rich rule". Sure they're achieving their goals amid race tensions and inequality but it's about the "rich rule", blacks are not the only ones at risk. I agree that trump is a racist idiot, but what you said about stacking the courts and dismantling of public programs, privatizing, that's the real concern to me.
The middle of both parties imo has most definitely shifted towards the extreme. 97 genders or whatever?? Not sure that ones going to stick.. Things like posting on Facebook that you'll buy a black guys ticket to "the black panther" if they can't afford to go themselves (makes me cringe), and have it be socially acceptable, or praised?... It's just a bit over the top.. Right is no different... We're missing common sense..
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So, Republicans implementing voter suppression laws is as bad as recognizing the scientific fact that there are more than two genders?
I don't get it. Republicans are trying to suppress freedom and Democrats are pretty much just recognizing that the old way of two genders doesn't fit the facts. How can those two issues equal out? I can understand how you might not like pc speech but does that amount to taking away a woman's right to choose? But that's what Republicans want to do.
Not to mention that, as you say, Republicans leadership are actually most interested in looting the treasury and using social issues to attract voters who seem to think that gay marriage is worse than 10 trillion additional debt to the nation in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy.
Regarding ""middle of both parties shifted to the extreme". I don't much care for Biden but he is the front runner by a large margin. When he had the left side of the field all to himself, he lost by 12% of the Democratic vote. It wasn't even close. So, that statement of yours doesn't seem quite accurate.
Vote Republicans out.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Trump fucks kids
srh88
Well-Known Member
Be nice to trump. His best friend is dead
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
Ya I'd agree with lots of that.
Id agree, the consequences of the extremes or what they entail is not comparable, it's why I most times fall within the liberal camp.
I'd lay a large portion of the anti-gay blame on religion.
To me trump just tapped into some good old historical angst to further his/their 1%er agenda. To me its all about money. They use race and abortion and whatever they can to "divide and conquer" (I know so cliche lol) while they run to the bank laughing..
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
As I see it, to Republican leadership its all about money. Trump attracts racist and misogynist voters like no other president in modern days. They aren't ever going to see the money and they know it, so it's not all about money to them.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This talking point was manufactured to suit your fear of the prosecution reformer. She wasn't late to shit. She's been consistent. As a DA and now as a lawmaker she introduced the best legislation of anyone in congress and you should support it if you are a US citizen who grows or smokes.
She was absolutely right to oppose prop 19 like most of California, including many growers. It was a shit bill that would have placed a high tax burden on us. It would have put us back in the mercy of the cartels to get weed.
That is why it failed in California 2 years after Obama stopped the DoJ from going after us. You clearly don't know shit about it. You're a broken record. Every thing that you have brought up has been countered by facts.
Vote for who you want but don't try to come with mamadas if you just have your mind made up without knowing shit. I'm from CA and I was growing a lot then right in Imperial Beach. I was absolutely opposed to prop 19.
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
Gold ran on it, she laughed at it. Now she's all for it. Flip. Flop. Her prosecutorial record aside from weed is disappointing, the cases that I read about didn't make her look very good at all.
I think you could take your own advice. I've given several examples of why she is a phony. It's you who has decided to dig their heels in amid the evidence. I literally feel like I'm talking to her through you, you seem to be taking my opinions very personally and want to quickly to dismiss the reality and merit of the allegations presented, and for what??? You've made up your mind, you're campaigning, I'm just commenting and discussing. Your targeted onslaught of pushing Kamala all over me is turning me off to her. I'm compitent enough to know that anyone with an opinion thinks their right, it may not make them so, but to them they are. So if we both think we're right, how much is fighting going to solve anything? I know I'm not going to change your opinion, and if you don't like mine thats ok. We both have our reasons, maybe a bit of tolerance is in store?
If she wins the bid I'll give her my vote, but Id rather she didn't win the bid. I think there are better candidates. Lol but I definitely know who you are going to vote for
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Several bad talking points that I addressed. Maybe reading isn't your forte.
LOL. Whatever trumptard. It's obvious that Trump can't win on merit so you fools are trying to muddy the water in the dem primaries instead. I have seen your posting history. At first I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and arguing carefully but you ignored all the arguments and just repeated nonsense.
You said this like 11 times. Doesn't make it accurate.
I don't care. I know that you are going to vote for trump again. I want you to hate her. I want you to cry when he goes to prison.
This is where I stopped reading your nonsense but I might get back to you when I have a moment.
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
Lol sounds good. Also, she could have had a public opinion on MJ that was pro, and not hummed and hahhed and dodged and deflected.. She could have said this is the way it is now, but I'd like to change that.. but she didn't.. She had several opportunities to show her support but what do we have? A clip of her laughing like it was craziest thing ever. That's the definition of flip flop. Show me where she pushed or had a pro opinion on MJ in the past...
Are you forgetting the cases I mentioned? I guess I don't understand your presumed significance with the term talking point. I think theyre all points worth talking about, and all hold significance to me.
You're just throwing a tantrum now, very similar to our pompous in chief..
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html
"
Worst of all, though, is Ms. Harris’s record in wrongful conviction cases. Consider George Gage, an electrician with no criminal record who was charged in 1999 with sexually abusing his stepdaughter, who reported the allegations years later. The case largely hinged on the stepdaughter’s testimony and Mr. Gage was convicted.
Afterward, the judge discovered that the prosecutor had unlawfully held back potentially exculpatory evidence, including medical reports indicating that the stepdaughter had been repeatedly untruthful with law enforcement. Her mother even described her as “a pathological liar” who “lives her lies.”
In 2015, when the case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, Ms. Harris’s prosecutors defended the conviction. They pointed out that Mr. Gage, while forced to act as his own lawyer, had not properly raised the legal issue in the lower court, as the law required.
The appellate judges acknowledged this impediment and sent the case to mediation, a clear signal for Ms. Harris to dismiss the case. When she refused to budge, the court upheld the conviction on that technicality. Mr. Gage is still in prison serving a 70-year sentence.
That case is not an outlier. Ms. Harris also fought to keep Daniel Larsen in prison on a 28-year-to-life sentence for possession of a concealed weapon even though his trial lawyer was incompetent and there was compelling evidence of his innocence. Relying on a technicality again, Ms. Harris argued that Mr. Larsen failed to raise his legal arguments in a timely fashion. (This time, she lost.)
She also defended Johnny Baca’s conviction for murder even though judges found a prosecutor presented false testimony at the trial. She relented only after a video of the oral argumentreceived national attention and embarrassed her office.
And then there’s Kevin Cooper, the death row inmate whose trial was infected by racism and corruption. He sought advanced DNA testing to prove his innocence, but Ms. Harris opposed it. (After The New York Times’s exposé of the case went viral, she reversed her position.)
All this is a shame because the state’s top prosecutor has the power and the imperative to seek justice. In cases of tainted convictions, that means conceding error and overturning them. Rather than fulfilling that obligation, Ms. Harris turned legal technicalities into weapons so she could cement injustices.
In “The Truths We Hold,” Ms. Harris’s recently published memoir, she writes: “America has a deep and dark history of people using the power of the prosecutor as an instrument of injustice.”
She adds, “I know this history well — of innocent men framed, of charges brought against people without sufficient evidence, of prosecutors hiding information that would exonerate defendants, of the disproportionate application of the law.”
All too often, she was on the wrong side of that history.
It is true that politicians must make concessions to get the support of key interest groups. The fierce, collective opposition of law enforcement and local district attorney associations can be hard to overcome at the ballot box. But in her career, Ms. Harris did not barter or trade to get the support of more conservative law-and-order types; she gave it all away.
Of course, the full picture is more complicated. During her tenure as district attorney, Ms. Harris refused to seek the death penalty in a case involving the murder of a police officer. And she started a successful program that offered first-time nonviolent offenders a chance to have their charges dismissed if they completed a rigorous vocational training. As attorney general, she mandated implicit bias training and was awarded for her work in correcting a backlog in the testing of rape kits.
But if Kamala Harris wants people who care about dismantling mass incarceration and correcting miscarriages of justice to vote for her, she needs to radically break with her past.
A good first step would be to apologize to the wrongfully convicted people she has fought to keep in prison and to do what she can to make sure they get justice. She should start with George Gage.
"
"
Worst of all, though, is Ms. Harris’s record in wrongful conviction cases. Consider George Gage, an electrician with no criminal record who was charged in 1999 with sexually abusing his stepdaughter, who reported the allegations years later. The case largely hinged on the stepdaughter’s testimony and Mr. Gage was convicted.
Afterward, the judge discovered that the prosecutor had unlawfully held back potentially exculpatory evidence, including medical reports indicating that the stepdaughter had been repeatedly untruthful with law enforcement. Her mother even described her as “a pathological liar” who “lives her lies.”
In 2015, when the case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, Ms. Harris’s prosecutors defended the conviction. They pointed out that Mr. Gage, while forced to act as his own lawyer, had not properly raised the legal issue in the lower court, as the law required.
The appellate judges acknowledged this impediment and sent the case to mediation, a clear signal for Ms. Harris to dismiss the case. When she refused to budge, the court upheld the conviction on that technicality. Mr. Gage is still in prison serving a 70-year sentence.
That case is not an outlier. Ms. Harris also fought to keep Daniel Larsen in prison on a 28-year-to-life sentence for possession of a concealed weapon even though his trial lawyer was incompetent and there was compelling evidence of his innocence. Relying on a technicality again, Ms. Harris argued that Mr. Larsen failed to raise his legal arguments in a timely fashion. (This time, she lost.)
She also defended Johnny Baca’s conviction for murder even though judges found a prosecutor presented false testimony at the trial. She relented only after a video of the oral argumentreceived national attention and embarrassed her office.
And then there’s Kevin Cooper, the death row inmate whose trial was infected by racism and corruption. He sought advanced DNA testing to prove his innocence, but Ms. Harris opposed it. (After The New York Times’s exposé of the case went viral, she reversed her position.)
All this is a shame because the state’s top prosecutor has the power and the imperative to seek justice. In cases of tainted convictions, that means conceding error and overturning them. Rather than fulfilling that obligation, Ms. Harris turned legal technicalities into weapons so she could cement injustices.
In “The Truths We Hold,” Ms. Harris’s recently published memoir, she writes: “America has a deep and dark history of people using the power of the prosecutor as an instrument of injustice.”
She adds, “I know this history well — of innocent men framed, of charges brought against people without sufficient evidence, of prosecutors hiding information that would exonerate defendants, of the disproportionate application of the law.”
All too often, she was on the wrong side of that history.
It is true that politicians must make concessions to get the support of key interest groups. The fierce, collective opposition of law enforcement and local district attorney associations can be hard to overcome at the ballot box. But in her career, Ms. Harris did not barter or trade to get the support of more conservative law-and-order types; she gave it all away.
Of course, the full picture is more complicated. During her tenure as district attorney, Ms. Harris refused to seek the death penalty in a case involving the murder of a police officer. And she started a successful program that offered first-time nonviolent offenders a chance to have their charges dismissed if they completed a rigorous vocational training. As attorney general, she mandated implicit bias training and was awarded for her work in correcting a backlog in the testing of rape kits.
But if Kamala Harris wants people who care about dismantling mass incarceration and correcting miscarriages of justice to vote for her, she needs to radically break with her past.
A good first step would be to apologize to the wrongfully convicted people she has fought to keep in prison and to do what she can to make sure they get justice. She should start with George Gage.
"
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
You’ve got to be a heartless chickenshit willing and able to fuck with those least capable of defending themselves or those without the means to pay for said defense to be a prosecutor. Period. The job requires a certain lack of empathy. It interferes with things to be sympathetic in that particular occupation.
A necessary job it is no argument. But I don’t have to like the people doing it. Don’t much care for any lawyer to be honest.
A necessary job it is no argument. But I don’t have to like the people doing it. Don’t much care for any lawyer to be honest.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Bullshit. She specialized in prosecuting sex crimes and she is better at it than pretty much anyone has ever been. As DA, her reforms toward racial justice in prosecutory policy were the most important thing to happen in California in my life.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Cool copy paste.
George Gage was accused by his ex-wife's daughter of raping her. The defense had a field day on her unreliability due to the mental illness that he caused to her by raping her. The prosecutor, who is now running for president, was not daunted by this.
Her testimony was shared with a jury and they unanimously convicted him. You're defending a child fucker because you're terrified that the prosecutor who locked him away is coming after Trump.
Gage has not been exonerated.
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
I said it’s a necessary job. Further I didn’t condemn any specific crime or criminal class. I’ll withdraw my claim after you post a brief summary of the cases she prosecuted in toto.