This is only a good argument if the conduct regulated by the law is bad in and of itself.
This is only a good argument if the conduct regulated by the law is bad in and of itself.
Multiple things can be bad at the same time. It is also possible to fight without being barbaric.
Yes.
Agree with your sentiment. This is totally off topic, but is there a lemmy instance that is uncensored? I know it's pedantry, but I really dislike seeing "removed" in place of female dog epithet.
Bravo
I don't understand why you are being down voted for this, other than people seem to really think this was somehow an admission of guilt and now he's going to jail.
I wish it was possible to discuss the actual nuances of this without being down voted, but anything beyond TRUMP BAD! gets ignored.
Now apply this same reasoning to other life concepts we've been told, and welcome to enlightenment.
(Or black pilling, YMMV)
Because targeted vandalism is easier and more satisfying to animalistic urges than the long work of organizing political backing, running for office, enacting societal change
Can you link me where he said he knew he lost in a valid election? I haven't seen that yet. Thanks!
Thanks for the link. All the down voted I'm getting suggest people think I am defending him, but I am just being a realist.
The link shows he acknowledged the US presidency moved on without him. However, he still maintains it was rigged.
That's the rub, and that's what the prosecutor has to show - Trump either knew or recklessly disregarded that the election was not rigged, and thus all his crazy actions were in bad faith.
Can the prosecutor prove that in court? Quite possibly. Is it the slam dunk that everyone in this thread seems to be celebrating? No.
It's hopeless my dude. Lemmy is filled with either wannabe revolutionaries or establishment toadies. There's no healthy scepticism to be found yet.
Nah, I think you're on target. Huge amount of money locked up in CRE
That's actually the heart of the issue. The prosecution will have to prove that Trump either knew that he lost the election or recklessly disregarded that fact.
Do people really not understand that this is not a confession? The cases against Trump hinge on whether he in fact did not believe there were legitimate grounds for contesting the election. I.e., he was advocating for overturning the results but didn't actually believe there were grounds to do so.
Saying "hE jUsT coNFeSsEd!1!" here is kind of a smooth brained take. He has to maintain that he really and truly believed the election results should be overturned, or he's in trouble.
What does "quietly" even mean? Didn't take out ads in Times Square?