It’s hopeless my dude. Lemmy is filled with either wannabe revolutionaries or establishment toadies. There’s no healthy scepticism to be found yet.

Yes.

What does “quietly” even mean? Didn’t take out ads in Times Square?

Clearly it’s the dude riding that pussy

Multiple things can be bad at the same time. It is also possible to fight without being barbaric.

By far the best part of the service

Now apply this same reasoning to other life concepts we’ve been told, and welcome to enlightenment.

(Or black pilling, YMMV)

Bravo

My stars!

Which makes no sense. How are the words picked? Is there a sliding scale, or an objectionable meter somewhere? Who decided that b!tch should be censored, but not cunt or skank?

This is only a good argument if the conduct regulated by the law is bad in and of itself.

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.

Can you link me where he said he knew he lost in a valid election? I haven’t seen that yet. Thanks!

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.

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.

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.

Thanks kind internet stranger! Also, am I just obtuse, or did the last questions not have response data?

As an unrelated aside, who the hell has that kind of time for a survey?!

Hmm, not seeing that in the link provided…maybe it’s been updated, or an issue on my end?

Nah, I think you’re on target. Huge amount of money locked up in CRE

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.