U.S. Politics Discussion 2.0

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.
youtube.com youtube.com
 
GoTheDoggies said:
Hostage: a person seized or held as security for the fulfilment of a condition.

By definition they are hostages.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean what you think it means. "as security" means they are held so they can either be traded for something, or so their well being can be used to deter other parties
 
When asked about the Jan 6 pardons (paraphrasing):

Mike Johnson - "The pardons are in the past. We don't want to go into the past. We want to look to the future"

*a few minutes later*

Mike Johnson - "we plan to investigate everything that went on with the Jan 6 committee"
 
There was ongoing trials against some of the Jan 6 rioters including two of the leaders. Trump ordered the Judge to dismiss the case with prejudice so no one could bring the trial back again.

The judge on the case basically gave an aggressive statement saying that Trump is trying to change the narrative and said that while she is forced to dismiss the case, she won't do it with prejudice, and she will allow charges to be raised again.
 
Hacky McAxe said:
There was ongoing trials against some of the Jan 6 rioters including two of the leaders. Trump ordered the Judge to dismiss the case with prejudice so no one could bring the trial back again.

The judge on the case basically gave an aggressive statement saying that Trump is trying to change the narrative and said that while she is forced to dismiss the case, she won't do it with prejudice, and she will allow charges to be raised again.
Click to expand...
End of her career and 4 years of MAGA harrasment.
 
GoTheDoggies said:
Hostage: a person seized or held as security for the fulfilment of a condition.

By definition they are hostages.
Click to expand...
Interesting interpretation but reallyu not sure how you came up with that one. They werent held as leverage for the fulfilment of a condition, they were held because they broke the law resulting in deaths and countless injuries.

Less creative interpretations of dictionary definitions, more consistent trolling, lafam.
 
Hacky McAxe said:
That doesn't mean what you think it means. "as security" means they are held so they can either be traded for something, or so their well being can be used to deter other parties
Click to expand...
Lol he knows that and knows it well.
 
Rodzilla said:
you asked how could there be non violent rioters , I showed that CNN has already documented them
Click to expand...
So if I walk through a public place as a riot is breaking out, or go there to participate in a peaceful protest and a riot breaks out, that automatically makes me a rioter?
 
Heard a great story today. Why is FLAFOTUS interested in Panama? Since there is no argument that under the treaty that the US has been treated unfairly. Or that China controls the canal or is at risk of doing so. In fact, since the latest Panama Pres came on board - ties to the US have only been closer.

One simple reason. Payback.

Story starts in 2011. Back then, FLAFOTUS and his business partners opened the Trump Ocean Club and International Hotel in Panama City. Now FLAFOTUS and his companies never built it, but they were brought on board for the 'name' and the management of the place. Had a casino, condos, hotel etc and Panama City is one of those places moderately wealthy americans go for retirement. Perfect fit.

Now, shortly after construction, one of the main players went broke and its believed the Pres of Panama at the time was involved in taking kick backs from the project. Its also known now that one of key property sellers in the project, met many times with Ivanka (FLAFOTUS rep for this) as well as many organised crime people. This led to the name in Panama - Narco-a-lago.

Anyways - project still ticked along after all the 'crims' fled. The people who actually bought condos in the development objected to the way FLAFOTUS was ripping them off and sought to fire FLAFOTUS. He doesn't own the place, just a management company. FLAFOTUS response - sue the fckrs for $75M. This was settled out of court in 2016 for an undisclosed sum - bottom line though was FLAFOTUS was still in the picture.

And in 2017 - in walks Orestes Fintiklis. Dude bought hundreds of units in the place. And as controlling owner - he wanted FLAFOTUS out. Orestes also runs a hotel management company. And from that point, the court cases began. Continued to 2021. At the end of the day - its now a Marriott hotel. So why after all of this is FLAFOTUS looking at the Panama Canal rather than Orestes (who ftr lives in Miami lol).

The new Panama Govt did a tax audit at the behest of Orestes and that was the main piece of evidence used against FLAFOTUS in these court cases. And as usual, FLAFOTUS paid out, no guilt found and the Trump sign got taken down.

So none of this is about Panama at all. This is an attempt to get back at Orestes who fckd him over royally. Control the canal, you control the govt and you can fck over the businessman that rooted his ass despite the nappies. And the best thing? He's got the right Panama Pres to do it with. Mulino has an interesting history with all the previous Pres's who got done for money laundering, financial irregularities etc etc.

So any bets that FLAFOTUS lays off Panama if Mulino goes after Orestes? Who ftr is a US citizen. Its the perfect payback, FLAFOTUS reckons Orestes used the Panama govt to screw him over, so FLAFOTUS can use the Panama Govt to screw over Orestes.

Welcome to FLAFOTUS world. #Sheeples
 
Utility said:
So if I walk through a public place as a riot is breaking out, or go there to participate in a peaceful protest and a riot breaks out, that automatically makes me a rioter?
Click to expand...

CNN was talking about rioting, they said fiery but peaceful protests, they weren’t talking about bystanders

why are you bringing up people in a public place, that’s got nothing to do with anything, why not bring up someone’s dick cheese in a public place if you are going to bring up things that are irrelevant

the dick cheese was there and it’s innocent dick cheese
 
Rodzilla said:
CNN was talking about rioting, they said fiery but peaceful protests, they weren’t talking about bystanders

why are you bringing up people in a public place, that’s got nothing to do with anything, why not bring up someone’s dick cheese in a public place if you are going to bring up things that are irrelevant

the dick cheese was there and it’s innocent dick cheese
Click to expand...
Dick cheese? You should write a paper Rodzy. First reported case of dick cheese from overuse of iverectum.
 
CaptainJackson said:
Those arrested for lighting fires and attacking police stations during the BLM protests included the boogaloo boys, who are far right agitators who were looking to start trouble

But good luck getting through to a mindless cult
Click to expand...
By the same token
People should be more concerned about who they don't arrest during these types of incidents and how it's framed.

20250123_200849.jpg


Also his Ray Epps decision to only sue Fox News for disinformation is quite telling when a multitude of news programs were saying the same shit.
 
Rodzilla said:
CNN was talking about rioting, they said fiery but peaceful protests, they weren’t talking about bystanders

why are you bringing up people in a public place, that’s got nothing to do with anything, why not bring up someone’s dick cheese in a public place if you are going to bring up things that are irrelevant

the dick cheese was there and it’s innocent dick cheese
Click to expand...
Dude, that makes no sense at all. They were clearly talking about b oth rioting and protests, because both were going on in the same polace simultaneously. Of course it's relevant that they were in a public place, because it means they had every right to be there, and unless they were lighting fires, trashing businesses or committing other crimes, they had every right to be there.
 
Utility said:
Dude, that makes no sense at all. They were clearly talking about b oth rioting and protests, because both were going on in the same polace simultaneously. Of course it's relevant that they were in a public place, because it means they had every right to be there, and unless they were lighting fires, trashing businesses or committing other crimes, they had every right to be there.
Click to expand...
Since we're comparing 'riots' - here's what the American judicial consideration looked like.

BLM: A US court ruled that a police officer could sue DeRay Mckesson personally for injuries sustained during the riot. Its agreed by both parties as a statement of fact that Mckesson did not injure or interact with the officer. He was just there.
Jan 6: Justices appeared sceptical that members of the mob who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6th for the express purpose of stopping the electoral vote count could be charged with obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding.

Riot or not. The definition is not in how you see it. Its what colour your skin is over there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top