Poll of the Day > The FBI have raided Mar a Lago today

(+) Yeah! (+)

If you don't have him tagged as "asks stupid questions; ignore" then you're way behind

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


so noble of you

Zareth posted...

If you don't have him tagged as "asks stupid questions; ignore" then you're way behind

I went with"citation needed guy" personally

Meanwhile, I went with not even spending the time or energy tagging them.

Entity13 posted...

Meanwhile, I went with not even spending the time or energy tagging them.

I usually do it when I want to remind myself not to get to dragged down with poor quality posters.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I usually do it when I want to remind myself not to get to dragged down with poor quality posters.

See, I adopted the opposite direction to my policies and thinking. Let the quality posters shine and grow, and pay them the time or energy; disregard the rest. Life's too short, too full of crap, to waste what I have on those who will take and take without at least trying to give in turn.

The Fibs havent had any good air time in awhile

cant recall any recent/relevant movies or big real life busts.

I bet theres a politically motivated Hannibal out there somewhere.

Zareth posted...

If you don't have him tagged as "asks stupid questions; ignore" then you're way behind

Rev doesn't need a tag

His posting style is like his own personal handwriting

I could also easily be tagged as 'asks stupid questions' cuz I'm the stupid-master

Zangulus posted...

Just doubling down on your ignorance and defense of slavery? Got it. I know what to tag you as now.

Wat

Lokarin posted...

I could also easily be tagged as 'asks stupid questions' cuz I'm the stupid-master

You genuinely want to know the answer though

Zareth posted...

You genuinely want to know the answer though

thanks bruh, that genuincely made me happy

Revelation34 posted...

Wat

You're so fucking annoying. You know that, right?

Revelation34 posted...

Wat.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/1/9/AAQwHjAADj9X.png
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/2/0/AAQwHjAADj9Y.png

Ozmose posted...

So obvious it can't hold up in a court of law.

Given that the impeachment trial over it largely amounted to everyone agreeing it was an impeachable offense, everyone agreeing that he was guilty, and then (almost) all of the republicans deciding to ignore that and vote along party lines for the sake of voting along party lines, I'd say it held up well enough in the relevant court. Said court is just innately so corrupt that it can't get a conviction because everyone votes based on their party instead of the defendant's guilt.

captpackrat posted...

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Which, to clarify for those that have no concept of linguistic nuance, effectively translates to "it's okay to enslave people if you convict them of a crime first." In turn, that means the government - by way of choosing who gets convicted and why - gets to pick and choose people that can be enslaved, and the country's rather sizable private prison lobby takes full advantage of this by making charitable donations to whichever politicians will secure them the most free* labour.

*A lot of prison labour isn't actually free, but the wages are far below minimum wage and are often recovered by charging prisoners other fees that equal or exceed them, so calling it "free labour" is close enough to accurate

adjl posted...

Given that the impeachment trial over it largely amounted to everyone agreeing it was an impeachable offense, everyone agreeing that he was guilty, and then (almost) all of the republicans deciding to ignore that and vote along party lines for the sake of voting along party lines, I'd say it held up well enough in the relevant court. Said court is just innately so corrupt that it can't get a conviction because everyone votes based on their party instead of the defendant's guilt.

There is no way actual courts would've found him guilty of anything in regards to 1/6. The first amendment is pretty strong, so unless Trump was explicitly telling his followers to enter the capital building & capture senators or something, it won't stick. Also if you listen to the speech, he explicitly told his followers to peacefully protest and said nothing about entering the capital building (he said go to the capital building, but did not say enter).

Of course, while you couldn't legally find him guilty for anything as of 1/6, morally you could. I mean gaslighting your followers for several months that the election is a fraud could conceivably lead to a situation like 1/6 or even worse if they really believed it, but ultimately even gaslighting is protected under the first amendment, so once again legally, no issue.

DragonClaw01 posted...

There is no way actual courts would've found him guilty of anything in regards to 1/6.

Criminal courts? No, you're correct. The court of impeachment? They did find him guilty, they just voted not to remove him.

DragonClaw01 posted...

Of course, while you couldn't legally find him guilty for anything as of 1/6, morally you could. I mean gaslighting your followers for several months that the election is a fraud could conceivably lead to a situation like 1/6 or even worse if they really believed it, but ultimately even gaslighting is protected under the first amendment, so once again legally, no issue.

Indeed. It may not be illegal, and he may not have explicitly told anyone to attack the Capitol, but he's the sole progenitor of the lie that formed the entire basis for the attack. If not for the election fraud rhetoric Trump spent 5-odd years spewing (his campaign for 2016 included "the only way I could lose is if the other people cheat" from day one, and he's only doubled down on that since then), I'm quite confident in the belief that the attack wouldn't have happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekefMUICOGo

I don't understand how the traitors can kill themselves or others to defend him when he is so clearly in the wrong.

BlackScythe0 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekefMUICOGo

I don't understand how the traitors can kill themselves or others to defend him when he is so clearly in the wrong.

How can they be alleged crimes if the title calls the home "crime-a-lago"? That means they wouldn't be alleged and are 100% true.

Revelation34 posted...

How can they be alleged crimes if the title calls the home "crime-a-lago"? That means they wouldn't be alleged and are 100% true.

FFS dude could you have something more pathetic to say?

BlackScythe0 posted...

FFS dude could you have something more pathetic to say?

It means don't take somebody serious who words their videos with shitty titles.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/8/7/AAFUswAADkx_.jpg
Fresh OC

Revelation34 posted...

It means don't take somebody serious who words their videos with shitty titles.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the title. It's just you making some sort of bizarre nonsense. You weren't going to like it regardless of any arbitrary standards you set because you hate reality.

BlackScythe0 posted...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the title. It's just you making some sort of bizarre nonsense. You weren't going to like it regardless of any arbitrary standards you set because you hate reality.

Lol.