RE: Trumps words get him into trouble....

RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/2/2017 6:40:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the judges ruling was against a motion by trumps lawyers to have the charges dismissed or a rejection of the defendants line of defense, he did not give a ruling that "trump incited violence." unless im missing something in the reading you have mischaracterized the event. What part of this do you not grasp? Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence.

bounty44 -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/2/2017 8:41:44 PM)
what I understand is that "ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a 'direct and proximate result' of trump's actions is not a direct statement or judgment by the judge that "trump incited violence" and since he referred the case to another judge, that it will be up to a jury to decide if trump did indeed do that. thus the headline of your article, "trump MAY have..." and the plaintiffs will have to prove the allegations. I may be splitting hairs, you might be also, and I very well could be wrong, but its likely going to take a lawyer, a better explanation, or some other article with a bit more definitive language to convince me.

BoscoX -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/2/2017 9:15:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the judges ruling was against a motion by trumps lawyers to have the charges dismissed or a rejection of the defendants line of defense, he did not give a ruling that "trump incited violence." unless im missing something in the reading you have mischaracterized the event. What part of this do you not grasp? Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence. The Soros-paid rioters who Trump was discussing were throwing unknown projectiles at him, a dangerous situation. Asking for assistance to defend against assault from paid alt left radicals was well within his rights, and it was a common sense precaution to take The outrage, he refused to be a victim. Went on the offense instead - repeatedly, and in many different ways. That's one reason we loved the man, he is a fighter rather than a mealy-mouthed RINO Obama was being stingy with the secret service protection at that time, because he is two-bit scummy little piece of dog shit that way No class, ever

mnottertail -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/3/2017 4:44:11 AM)
The nutsuckers paid rioters who were also nutsuckers were just out pimping pedophiles to our youth.

jlf1961 -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/3/2017 5:40:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the judges ruling was against a motion by trumps lawyers to have the charges dismissed or a rejection of the defendants line of defense, he did not give a ruling that "trump incited violence." unless im missing something in the reading you have mischaracterized the event. What part of this do you not grasp? Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence. The Soros-paid rioters who Trump was discussing were throwing unknown projectiles at him, a dangerous situation. Asking for assistance to defend against assault from paid alt left radicals was well within his rights, and it was a common sense precaution to take The outrage, he refused to be a victim. Went on the offense instead - repeatedly, and in many different ways. That's one reason we loved the man, he is a fighter rather than a mealy-mouthed RINO Obama was being stingy with the secret service protection at that time, because he is two-bit scummy little piece of dog shit that way No class, ever Man, you talk about grasping at straws. The president has no control over secret service protection for presidential candidates, that is strictly a secret service operation without controls placed on it by any one in government, sort of an offshoot of the George Wallace incident. Secondly, the incident did not involve anyone throwing anything at Donald Trump, in Louisville, even FOX doesnt mention it, so give it a break. In fact, during the whole campaign only one incident involved anything thrown at Donald Trump, and that was in Iowa.

WhoreMods -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/3/2017 5:59:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the judges ruling was against a motion by trumps lawyers to have the charges dismissed or a rejection of the defendants line of defense, he did not give a ruling that "trump incited violence." unless im missing something in the reading you have mischaracterized the event. What part of this do you not grasp? Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence. The Soros-paid rioters who Trump was discussing were throwing unknown projectiles at him, a dangerous situation. Asking for assistance to defend against assault from paid alt left radicals was well within his rights, and it was a common sense precaution to take The outrage, he refused to be a victim. Went on the offense instead - repeatedly, and in many different ways. That's one reason we loved the man, he is a fighter rather than a mealy-mouthed RINO Obama was being stingy with the secret service protection at that time, because he is two-bit scummy little piece of dog shit that way No class, ever Man, you talk about grasping at straws. The president has no control over secret service protection for presidential candidates, that is strictly a secret service operation without controls placed on it by any one in government, sort of an offshoot of the George Wallace incident. Secondly, the incident did not involve anyone throwing anything at Donald Trump, in Louisville, even FOX doesnt mention it, so give it a break. In fact, during the whole campaign only one incident involved anything thrown at Donald Trump, and that was in Iowa. Maybe the "rioters" were throwing fake shoes at him?

BoscoX -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/3/2017 6:00:13 AM)
Can you imagine how you poor little crybaby snowflakes would react if someone like Trump sent Koch-paid rioters to disrupt Sanders, Clinton or Obama rallies - then the media propagandized the incidents, by portraying the paid rioters as "victims" with selectively edited video and false narrative fake news articles

mnottertail -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/3/2017 6:03:35 AM)
I dont know, they already have, but you snowflakes are absolutely shitting your pants and cockgargling over the fact that the nutsuckers paid nutsuckers to disrupt the Il Douchovitch campaign and derail from the fact that the Russians are your bedmates. Can you imagine how you poor little snowflake nutsuckers are shitting your pants all the time? Go to a doctor about the butthurt, you still got obamacare, thanks to the nutsuckers efforts.

WhoreMods -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/3/2017 6:04:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX Can you imagine how you poor little crybaby snowflakes would react if someone like Trump sent Koch-paid rioters to disrupt Sanders, Clinton or Obama rallies - then the media propagandized the incidents, by portraying the paid rioters as "victims" with selectively edited video and false narrative fake news articles What, you mean like the Koch-funded riot that was staged to illegally stop the Florida recount in 2000? Or the tea party riots in '08? Nope, something like that is just unimaginable, isn't it?

BoscoX -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/3/2017 6:07:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX Can you imagine how you poor little crybaby snowflakes would react if someone like Trump sent Koch-paid rioters to disrupt Sanders, Clinton or Obama rallies - then the media propagandized the incidents, by portraying the paid rioters as "victims" with selectively edited video and false narrative fake news articles What, you mean like the Koch-funded riot that was staged to illegally stop the Florida recount in 2000? Or the tea party riots in '08? Nope, something like that is just unimaginable, isn't it? My, little whore boy - you DO have a good imagination [image]http://i.imgur.com/lswdOqo.gif[/image]

WhoreMods -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/3/2017 6:18:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX Can you imagine how you poor little crybaby snowflakes would react if someone like Trump sent Koch-paid rioters to disrupt Sanders, Clinton or Obama rallies - then the media propagandized the incidents, by portraying the paid rioters as "victims" with selectively edited video and false narrative fake news articles What, you mean like the Koch-funded riot that was staged to illegally stop the Florida recount in 2000? Or the tea party riots in '08? Nope, something like that is just unimaginable, isn't it? My, little whore boy - you DO have a good imagination [image]http://i.imgur.com/lswdOqo.gif[/image] If you're stupid enough to believe Breitbart's line that any violence or property damage at tea party events was the work of stealth leftists who'd infiltrated the movement to discredit it, it's probably very easy to dismiss anything that clashes with your unexamined assumptions as imagination.

mnottertail -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/3/2017 7:25:38 AM)
Remember the Paul violence at the RNC? These nutsucker goons and thugs are a violent lot.

Real0ne -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/3/2017 8:28:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the judges ruling was against a motion by trumps lawyers to have the charges dismissed or a rejection of the defendants line of defense, he did not give a ruling that "trump incited violence." unless im missing something in the reading you have mischaracterized the event. What part of this do you not grasp? Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence. On yer knees bitch pray to your gods! Maybe its time we abolish the creemy supreemies, ya think! quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne More counterfeit SCROTUM rulings. The 1st amendment certainly DOES protect the right to say whatever the hell one wants to say. This is more of the SCROTUMS sleight of hand and constitutional subterfuge by pretending the 'results of free speech' is the same as the 'act of free speech' itself. Bend over, I hear the train a comin, its rolling round the bend!

Real0ne -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/3/2017 8:32:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods [img]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OoV_gsbYcxI/hqdefault.jpg[/img] I still dont know what you were talking about, what is a Kike?

Milesnmiles -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/4/2017 3:57:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX You are just parroting the propaganda you have been fed, blind man Eating shit sandwiches thinking it's steak I am constantly amazed at your ability to ignore everything that is going on around you and reduce it all, in your mind, to "propaganda"and thinking that by only using profanity and not any kind of reasoning is going to convince anyone that you are correct and should join you in your blinded lockstep support of Trump. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Trumps words get him into trouble.... (4/4/2017 4:17:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX Can you imagine how you poor little crybaby snowflakes would react if someone like Trump sent Koch-paid rioters to disrupt Sanders, Clinton or Obama rallies - then the media propagandized the incidents, by portraying the paid rioters as "victims" with selectively edited video and false narrative fake news articles I know you don't like to open up your mind to consider other possibilities but is it possible that Trump's "violent hate speech" inspired the violence at his rallies all on it's own without outside help. Whereas Sanders, Clinton or Obama's "violent hate speech" at their rallies was not strong enough to be considered actionable, let alone inspire violence. ;-)

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875