The grand jury voted to indict TFG this evening

[tlynn78]

I've been careful to be consistent with my phrasing. I've said that anyone else who committed the acts Donny IS CHARGED WITH committing would also be charged. Most prominent Republicans are arguing that he should get a pass, whether he actually committed these crimes or not. That's indefensible. Let Donny answer the charges against him, just like anyone else would have to.
I have no idea if you've been consistent in the past in re that. What I do find consistent in your past is unrelenting dem bias and vitriol against repubs. With no regard to dem bad doers in the same regard.

There is nothing in our history even remotely comparable to Donny's open encouragement of an insurrection, his blatant disregard for the rule of law, and his interference with the peaceful transfer of power, going so far as to encourage insurrectionists who were calling for his own Vice President to be hanged (and were marching to the Capitol with the means to carry out their threat). There is also nothing in our history even remotely comparable to the Republican enablers who could have stopped him years ago.

It's not bias to call for unprecedented actions to be met with an unprecedented response. --Bob

Equal treatment under the law for all, but only all Republicans.

[silverscreenselect]

Well, see, Mr. Lawyer, there's this little thing called presumption of innocence. Despite what you and that vaunted authority on all things legal, Nancy Pelosi believe, those charges still need to be proven by Bragg, not disproven by Trump. I don't know, nor do I assume he did the things he's charged with. I'm willing to wait and see.

More likely, you're willing to wait and then invent some new rationalization when things don't go well in court for Trump.

Trump is presumed innocent, but everything in the statement of facts wasn't just something that Alvin Bragg invented. The grand jury made those findings based on witness testimony and, more important, business records. What most legal experts tonight are saying is that Bragg put together a more detailed case outlining a more extensive scheme on Trump's part than they originally thought would happen. It's not just Michael Cohen giving his version of payments to Stormy Daniels. There was even a third person paid hush money, a doorman who had information about Trump's supposed illegitimate kid.

[silverscreenselect]

Not careful enough. If you weren’t so inconsistent with your insistence someone be charged so it wasn’t obvious it’s only Trump, in your mind, who should be charged, you might be believable. Same goes with Bragg.

If Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or any other Democratic presidential candidate set up a slush fund and had the CEO of the National Enquirer spike unfavorable stories using money fraudulently obtained from campaign funds, then I would say prosecute them to the full extent of the law, and I'm sure Bob would too. But that never happened. Nobody's ever done anything like what Trump did before.

[tlynn78]

Not careful enough. If you weren’t so inconsistent with your insistence someone be charged so it wasn’t obvious it’s only Trump, in your mind, who should be charged, you might be believable. Same goes with Bragg.

If Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or any other Democratic presidential candidate set up a slush fund and had the CEO of the National Enquirer spike unfavorable stories using money fraudulently obtained from campaign funds, then I would say prosecute them to the full extent of the law, and I'm sure Bob would too. But that never happened. Nobody's ever done anything like what Trump did before.

So, just a slush fund, though, right? Not lying under oath, destroying emails under subpoena, hiding donors, withholding foreign aid to further a son's "career" - those are all cool, right? The Democrats simply rely on their willing idiots in the main stream media to carry their water, have their stooges in the FBI plant "warnings" with social media giants, or outright threaten them, but that's just fine, right?

As I said, I will wait and see. If he's proven guilty of any of the 'charges' then I expect he'll receive sanctions, which I suspect will amount to far more than old Teddy boy faced for negligent homicide. I could certainly be wrong, but I suspect he'll walk away with a slap on the wrist on may be a tenth of what's in the "indictment." And your side will have virtually guaranteed he will be the Republican nominee. But hey, you'll be able to wear your best "Trump was indicted and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" shirt, so there's that.

[BackInTex]

Not careful enough. If you weren’t so inconsistent with your insistence someone be charged so it wasn’t obvious it’s only Trump, in your mind, who should be charged, you might be believable. Same goes with Bragg.

If Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or any other Democratic presidential candidate set up a slush fund and had the CEO of the National Enquirer spike unfavorable stories using money fraudulently obtained from campaign funds, then I would say prosecute them to the full extent of the law, and I'm sure Bob would too. But that never happened. Nobody's ever done anything like what Trump did before.

So, just a slush fund, though, right? Not lying under oath, destroying emails under subpoena, hiding donors, withholding foreign aid to further a son's "career" - those are all cool, right? The Democrats simply rely on their willing idiots in the main stream media to carry their water, have their stooges in the FBI plant "warnings" with social media giants, or outright threaten them, but that's just fine, right?

As I said, I will wait and see. If he's proven guilty of any of the 'charges' then I expect he'll receive sanctions, which I suspect will amount to far more than old Teddy boy faced for negligent homicide. I could certainly be wrong, but I suspect he'll walk away with a slap on the wrist on may be a tenth of what's in the "indictment." And your side will have virtually guaranteed he will be the Republican nominee. But hey, you'll be able to wear your best "Trump was indicted and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" shirt, so there's that.

This is just Russian Collusion 4.0. All setup and lit by the Democrat Party. But never a fire, just smoke (from the gas lights). The Bobs and SSS don't care about true corruption as long as mothers can kill their unborn babies and men can dress and pretend to be women and those who beileve that to be mental illness get sanctioned for their beliefs.

[Bob78164]

This is just Russian Collusion 4.0. All setup and lit by the Democrat Party. But never a fire, just smoke (from the gas lights). The Bobs and SSS don't care about true corruption as long as mothers can kill their unborn babies and men can dress and pretend to be women and those who beileve that to be mental illness get sanctioned for their beliefs.

Like most of the country, I continue to believe that no one has the right to force an unwilling woman to remain pregnant. And like most of the country, I don't believe that a fetus, particularly a fetus who is months away from achieving self-awareness, is an "unborn baby." Any more than an acorn is an oak tree.

No one is seeking sanctions for your beliefs. You're just, again, trying to gaslight people by posing as a victim when you are in fact the aggressor. Sanctions are, however, appropriate for hateful and discriminatory actions refusing to acknowledge the reality of the transgendered.

Believe what you want. But actions have consequences. --Bob

[BackInTex]

This is just Russian Collusion 4.0. All setup and lit by the Democrat Party. But never a fire, just smoke (from the gas lights). The Bobs and SSS don't care about true corruption as long as mothers can kill their unborn babies and men can dress and pretend to be women and those who beileve that to be mental illness get sanctioned for their beliefs.

Like most of the country, I continue to believe that no one has the right to force an unwilling woman to remain pregnant. And like most of the country, I don't believe that a fetus, particularly a fetus who is months away from achieving self-awareness, is an "unborn baby." Any more than an acorn is an oak tree.

No one is seeking sanctions for your beliefs. You're just, again, trying to gaslight people by posing as a victim when you are in fact the aggressor. Sanctions are, however, appropriate for hateful and discriminatory actions refusing to acknowledge the reality of the transgendered.

Believe what you want. But actions have consequences. --Bob

Yes they do! Even in California, where if your actions result in the death of an unborn child (unless your profession is killing unborn children), you can and likely will be charged with manslaughter or even murder. California admits that an unborn child is a person with legal rights to live (unless the mother choses not to allow it).

The "reality" of the transgendered is they don't live in reality.

[Bob78164]

This is just Russian Collusion 4.0. All setup and lit by the Democrat Party. But never a fire, just smoke (from the gas lights). The Bobs and SSS don't care about true corruption as long as mothers can kill their unborn babies and men can dress and pretend to be women and those who beileve that to be mental illness get sanctioned for their beliefs.

Like most of the country, I continue to believe that no one has the right to force an unwilling woman to remain pregnant. And like most of the country, I don't believe that a fetus, particularly a fetus who is months away from achieving self-awareness, is an "unborn baby." Any more than an acorn is an oak tree.

No one is seeking sanctions for your beliefs. You're just, again, trying to gaslight people by posing as a victim when you are in fact the aggressor. Sanctions are, however, appropriate for hateful and discriminatory actions refusing to acknowledge the reality of the transgendered.

Believe what you want. But actions have consequences. --Bob

Yes they do! Even in California, where if your actions result in the death of an unborn child (unless your profession is killing unborn children), you can and likely will be charged with manslaughter or even murder. California admits that an unborn child is a person with legal rights to live (unless the mother choses not to allow it).

The "reality" of the transgendered is they don't live in reality.

You can just go ahead and keep making that pitch. And we'll continue to see election results like we just saw in Wisconsin. And before that in Kansas. And Pennsylvania. And pretty much everywhere else the issue has reached the ballot, either directly or through a proxy running for elective office.

The reality is that our society values a woman's right to control her body much more than the potential represented by a clump of cells in that woman's uterus. And that's a value judgment most of the country agrees with.

As for refusing to acknowledge the reality of the transgendered, that's simple prejudice and arrogance on your part. How dare you claim to know better than these people what's good for them? You're simply trying to impose your own religious views on a politically vulnerable population. --Bob

[Spock]

Like most of the country, I continue to believe that no one has the right to force an unwilling woman to remain pregnant. And like most of the country, I don't believe that a fetus, particularly a fetus who is months away from achieving self-awareness, is an "unborn baby." Any more than an acorn is an oak tree.

No one is seeking sanctions for your beliefs. You're just, again, trying to gaslight people by posing as a victim when you are in fact the aggressor. Sanctions are, however, appropriate for hateful and discriminatory actions refusing to acknowledge the reality of the transgendered.

Believe what you want. But actions have consequences. --Bob

Yes they do! Even in California, where if your actions result in the death of an unborn child (unless your profession is killing unborn children), you can and likely will be charged with manslaughter or even murder. California admits that an unborn child is a person with legal rights to live (unless the mother choses not to allow it).

The "reality" of the transgendered is they don't live in reality.

You can just go ahead and keep making that pitch. And we'll continue to see election results like we just saw in Wisconsin. And before that in Kansas. And Pennsylvania. And pretty much everywhere else the issue has reached the ballot, either directly or through a proxy running for elective office.

The reality is that our society values a woman's right to control her body much more than the potential represented by a clump of cells in that woman's uterus. And that's a value judgment most of the country agrees with.

As for refusing to acknowledge the reality of the transgendered, that's simple prejudice and arrogance on your part. How dare you claim to know better than these people what's good for them? You're simply trying to impose your own religious views on a politically vulnerable population. --Bob

What you call a Politically vulnerable population" seems in many cases to be victims of liberal white women going after the current ultimate status symbol-a transgender child.

[silverscreenselect]

If he's proven guilty of any of the 'charges' then I expect he'll receive sanctions, which I suspect will amount to far more than old Teddy boy faced for negligent homicide. I could certainly be wrong, but I suspect he'll walk away with a slap on the wrist on may be a tenth of what's in the "indictment."

He's going to receive "sanctions" in Georgia, and in the January 6 investigation, and in the classified documents investigation as well.

[Bob78164]

Yes they do! Even in California, where if your actions result in the death of an unborn child (unless your profession is killing unborn children), you can and likely will be charged with manslaughter or even murder. California admits that an unborn child is a person with legal rights to live (unless the mother choses not to allow it).

The "reality" of the transgendered is they don't live in reality.

You can just go ahead and keep making that pitch. And we'll continue to see election results like we just saw in Wisconsin. And before that in Kansas. And Pennsylvania. And pretty much everywhere else the issue has reached the ballot, either directly or through a proxy running for elective office.

The reality is that our society values a woman's right to control her body much more than the potential represented by a clump of cells in that woman's uterus. And that's a value judgment most of the country agrees with.

As for refusing to acknowledge the reality of the transgendered, that's simple prejudice and arrogance on your part. How dare you claim to know better than these people what's good for them? You're simply trying to impose your own religious views on a politically vulnerable population. --Bob

What you call a Politically vulnerable population" seems in many cases to be victims of liberal white women going after the current ultimate status symbol-a transgender child.

This sounds to me like the same prejudice that used to (and in some circles probably still does) equate being gay with being predatory.

You don't know these kids. You have no clue what's best for them. You also don't care. You just want to force them to live in conformance with your values and beliefs, whether or not they share those values and beliefs, and no matter what harm trying to live by your standards might cause them. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Your beliefs have caused harm. Conveniently calling clumps of cells as not viable. Not saying there aren't situations where things may require stuff. But arbitrarily calling an unborn baby, for convenience sake, clumps of cells is vile.

[Bob78164]

Your beliefs have caused harm. Conveniently calling clumps of cells as not viable. Not saying there aren't situations where things may require stuff. But arbitrarily calling an unborn baby, for convenience sake, clumps of cells is vile.

No, what's vile is hijacking a woman's body for nine months to force her to carry to term a pregnancy she doesn't want.

Fortunately, election results across the country are demonstrating that the majority of the American people, even in so-called red states, agree with me. Eventually they'll be able to undo the harm that the Supreme Court's Republican caucus has caused, but it'll probably take decades. --Bob

[tlynn78]

You can just go ahead and keep making that pitch. And we'll continue to see election results like we just saw in Wisconsin. And before that in Kansas. And Pennsylvania. And pretty much everywhere else the issue has reached the ballot, either directly or through a proxy running for elective office.

The reality is that our society values a woman's right to control her body much more than the potential represented by a clump of cells in that woman's uterus. And that's a value judgment most of the country agrees with.

As for refusing to acknowledge the reality of the transgendered, that's simple prejudice and arrogance on your part. How dare you claim to know better than these people what's good for them? You're simply trying to impose your own religious views on a politically vulnerable population. --Bob

What you call a Politically vulnerable population" seems in many cases to be victims of liberal white women going after the current ultimate status symbol-a transgender child.

This sounds to me like the same prejudice that used to (and in some circles probably still does) equate being gay with being predatory.

You don't know these kids. You have no clue what's best for them. You also don't care. You just want to force them to live in conformance with your values and beliefs, whether or not they share those values and beliefs, and no matter what harm trying to live by your standards might cause them. --Bob

Deciding whether an innocent human life gets scraped away based on convenience is the ultimate in imposing your own views. Wrap it up in whatever camouflage you want, abortion = deliberately stopping a beating human heart (after the first few weeks after conception). It's hardly surprising that someone okay with the mass killing of human babies is also fine with mutilating the genitalia of those who get to live, based on, at best, a mental health defect, and at worst, a passing childish fancy.

[Beebs52]

Your beliefs have caused harm. Conveniently calling clumps of cells as not viable. Not saying there aren't situations where things may require stuff. But arbitrarily calling an unborn baby, for convenience sake, clumps of cells is vile.

No, what's vile is hijacking a woman's body for nine months to force her to carry to term a pregnancy she doesn't want.

Fortunately, election results across the country are demonstrating that the majority of the American people, even in so-called red states, agree with me. Eventually they'll be able to undo the harm that the Supreme Court's Republican caucus has caused, but it'll probably take decades. --Bob

Doesn't want. Not can't carry due to health reasons for mother or baby, or some other reasons. Most abortions, look it up on Guttmacher, are convenience. Convenience. Why don't these folks use birth control? Bob, Bob.

[Beebs52]

Nice deflection, Bob. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnew ... bna4670123

I forget, however, that you're an atheist trying to promote your nonbelief, in the minority, on the majority.

[Bob78164]

Why don't these folks use birth control? Bob, Bob.

Sometimes they do and the birth control fails. Sometimes the sex wasn't consensual.

But none of this matters. A woman's decision to have sex shouldn't mean she gives up the right to control her body for nine months. And again, most of America agrees with me about this. Which is why the anti-choice position loses pretty much everywhere in America it's put to a vote of the people. So please, keep on beating your head against this electoral wall. --Bob

[BackInTex]

And again, most of America agrees with me about this.

The "most of ..pick your demographic.. agrees with me" is in no way evidence or support of what is legal or even moral. I'm sure you agree with that. So quit including it in your defense of your positions.

[Beebs52]

I want to know his opinion on the majority of 600,000 + abortions that are conveniences

[Bob78164]

I want to know his opinion on the majority of 600,000 + abortions that are conveniences

There's no such thing as an abortion that's a "convenience," and using that terminology is incredibly insulting to the women who make the choice, for whatever reason, that they do not wish to continue a pregnancy. It's none of my business, and none of your business, why a woman makes that choice. The only thing that's important is that it's her body, so she gets to make the choice. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

What you call a Politically vulnerable population" seems in many cases to be victims of liberal white women going after the current ultimate status symbol-a transgender child.

This sounds to me like the same prejudice that used to (and in some circles probably still does) equate being gay with being predatory.

You don't know these kids. You have no clue what's best for them. You also don't care. You just want to force them to live in conformance with your values and beliefs, whether or not they share those values and beliefs, and no matter what harm trying to live by your standards might cause them. --Bob

Deciding whether an innocent human life gets scraped away based on convenience is the ultimate in imposing your own views. Wrap it up in whatever camouflage you want, abortion = deliberately stopping a beating human heart (after the first few weeks after conception). It's hardly surprising that someone okay with the mass killing of human babies is also fine with mutilating the genitalia of those who get to live, based on, at best, a mental health defect, and at worst, a passing childish fancy.

There is no heartbeat until six weeks or more after conception, not "the first few weeks."

[Beebs52]

I want to know his opinion on the majority of 600,000 + abortions that are conveniences

There's no such thing as an abortion that's a "convenience," and using that terminology is incredibly insulting to the women who make the choice, for whatever reason, that they do not wish to continue a pregnancy. It's none of my business, and none of your business, why a woman makes that choice. The only thing that's important is that it's her body, so she gets to make the choice. --Bob

Check out the reasons women choose abortions on Guttmacher. Are you just clueless? It's not a rightwing site.

[Bob78164]

I want to know his opinion on the majority of 600,000 + abortions that are conveniences

There's no such thing as an abortion that's a "convenience," and using that terminology is incredibly insulting to the women who make the choice, for whatever reason, that they do not wish to continue a pregnancy. It's none of my business, and none of your business, why a woman makes that choice. The only thing that's important is that it's her body, so she gets to make the choice. --Bob

Check out the reasons women choose abortions on Guttmacher. Are you just clueless? It's not a rightwing site.

You're missing my point. There's no reason for me to do that because their reasons are none of my business and none of your business. The only thing that matters is that the woman chooses not to spend nine months of her life pregnant and it's her body that's going through the pregnancy. Feel free to make a different choice with your own body. --Bob

[Beebs52]

There's no such thing as an abortion that's a "convenience," and using that terminology is incredibly insulting to the women who make the choice, for whatever reason, that they do not wish to continue a pregnancy. It's none of my business, and none of your business, why a woman makes that choice. The only thing that's important is that it's her body, so she gets to make the choice. --Bob

Check out the reasons women choose abortions on Guttmacher. Are you just clueless? It's not a rightwing site.

You're missing my point. There's no reason for me to do that because their reasons are none of my business and none of your business. The only thing that matters is that the woman chooses not to spend nine months of her life pregnant and it's her body that's going through the pregnancy. Feel free to make a different choice with your own body. --Bob

I understand you have no moral compass about this. But, hey, you're a different guy.

[Bob78164]

Check out the reasons women choose abortions on Guttmacher. Are you just clueless? It's not a rightwing site.

You're missing my point. There's no reason for me to do that because their reasons are none of my business and none of your business. The only thing that matters is that the woman chooses not to spend nine months of her life pregnant and it's her body that's going through the pregnancy. Feel free to make a different choice with your own body. --Bob

I understand you have no moral compass about this. But, hey, you're a different guy.

That's awfully damned arrogant of you, assuming that because my sense of morality differs from yours that it means I have no sense of morality about the issue.

But that's what I've come to expect of the Republican Party in general, and in particular of the religious right. The group hasn't changed from the days when my neighbor across the street told me (as a kid) that I was going to go to hell when I died because, as a Jew, I don't believe in Jesus. Tell me, do you figure he learned that doctrine from Sunday school, church, his parents, or all three?

The difference is, nowadays your group is trying to make the entire country live according to your own cramped sense of morality. Fortunately, the American people are rejecting that attempt at every opportunity, probably because they are rejecting the arrogance of the religious right. --Bob