The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

The Cowardly Fat Bob The Slob is about as honest as John F. Kennedy's dad....
 
nononono said:
QUOTE="Nonononono, post: 208289, member: 2987"

Couldn’t agree more with your vitriolic and utter contempt for the “Fuckin LIAR !” that said this.

Sept. 7, 2012 - Donald Trump

"Unemployment rate only dropped because more people are out of labor force & have stopped looking for work. Not a real recovery, phony numbers.”

/QUOTE
That's a Lame Ass use of a non verifiable Quote.

Show the source with a verifiable link....

You are a Fucking Coward and a Fucking Pussy.....

Just as the MSM lies about daily facts, so to do you ....Enjoy your new
status as the Fucking Coward of the Forum, Pussy Ass Coward Muther Fucker....
Click to expand...
I’m thinking a screenshot of your fuhrer’s actual twitter post meets any court of civil discourse’s burden of proof, if so necessary to demonstrate your ignorance of history, or more importantly, the ease and accuracy a simple google search yields to prove the moron your screen character possesses.

2C15B3DC-0E33-4092-A212-04B70913BECE.jpeg
 
Lion Eyes said:
That's apparently how you see the Clinton's.
They've sacrificed nothing & to compare them to Christ is just more proof you should remain silent.
Click to expand...
A criminal defendant in the historic and still-current American rules of both state and federal criminal procedures does not have as a viable and legally recognized defense the citation to other persons in any similar or dissimilar circumstances having not been charged with such similar or dissimilar offenses(s) from which a court would accept such plea.

This appears to be the Trump defense playbook. Cite others actually or theoretically accused formally or informally through the court of public opinion to distract the ‘not smart people’* that will believe anything their fuhrer or his brown shirts (or red, white and blue blouse shirts) will cynically bloviate on Fox.

“Your honor, I was driving at 95 mph the same as Bill Clinton was in his El Camino, but the cop didn’t pull Clinton over.”

*Santorum.
 
Nonononono said:
A criminal defendant in the historic and still-current American rules of both state and federal criminal procedures does not have as a viable and legally recognized defense the citation to other persons in any similar or dissimilar circumstances having not been charged with such similar or dissimilar offenses(s) from which a court would accept such plea.

This appears to be the Trump defense playbook. Cite others actually or theoretically accused formally or informally through the court of public opinion to distract the ‘not smart people’* that will believe anything their fuhrer or his brown shirts (or red, white and blue blouse shirts) will cynically bloviate on Fox.

“Your honor, I was driving at 95 mph the same as Bill Clinton was in his El Camino, but the cop didn’t pull Clinton over.”

*Santorum.
Click to expand...
"Precedent" is a bitch.
 
Lion Eyes said:
"Precedent" is a bitch.
Click to expand...
“Precedent”: a previous case or legal decision that may be or ( binding precedent) must be followed in subsequent similar cases.
"the decision set a precedent for others to be sent to trial in the US".

Darn right it is. Like Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683. Inconvenient truths.

Try looking up stare decisis. A little old concept generally well respected by genuinely impartial judicial officers of the Court.
 
Nonononono said:
“Precedent”: a previous case or legal decision that may be or ( binding precedent) must be followed in subsequent similar cases.
"the decision set a precedent for others to be sent to trial in the US".

Darn right it is. Like Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683. Inconvenient truths.

Try looking up stare decisis. A little old concept generally well respected by genuinely impartial judicial officers of the Court.
Click to expand...
We'll be hearing all about stare decisis in the SCOTUS appointment hearing...
I wasn't talking about a court of law.
I was talking about what how norms have changed, what was once unacceptable, now is.
Like when the Democrats changed the rules appointing federal judges with a simple majority, rather than 60%.
A precedent was established. The Democrats will now bitch moan and complain how unfair that is during the confirmation proceedings.
Precedent is "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances".
Precedent is a model, a yardstick, a standard, a guide...
https://www.bing.com/search?q=precedent&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IENTSR&pc=EUPP_
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top