Poll of the Day > Trump happening rn

(+) Yeah! (+)

Oh I'm sure the court will delight in that one, his overworked attorneys included.

I don't know how judges or other legal officials have not called him out on these stochastic threats.

SeahorseCpt89 posted...

It really worries me that he still has a chance to win this.

If Trump wins again it will be because of fucking morons who think "stuff is more expensive with Biden in office!"

Its crazy to me how fox news is accusing the left of projecting now.

Instead of reporting on the fact that Trump made very clear threats to the judge and jury, Fox News is reporting on Biden drinking from a Dark Brandon mug, and how disrespectful that is because Brandon is what they call him as an insult.

papercup posted...

Instead of reporting on the fact that Trump made very clear threats to the judge and jury, Fox News is reporting on Biden drinking from a Dark Brandon mug, and how disrespectful that is because Brandon is what they call him as an insult.

He did?

papercup posted...

Biden drinking from a Dark Brandon mug

My BASED president.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/2/3/AAFUswAAEufv.jpg

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/2/3/AAFUswAAEufv.jpg

Needs a McDonald's bag.

Revelation34 posted...

He did?

Post 50...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/8/1/AAFUswAAEuiN.jpg

BlackScythe0 posted...

Post 50...

It says "Trump made very clear threats to the judge and jury," That isn't stated in post 50.

Revelation34 posted...

It says "Trump made very clear threats to the judge and jury," That isn't stated in post 50.

It also shows more than half of Trump's post, which can easily be found in full if you, you know, looked for it somewhere that isn't the inside of Trump's rectal cavity.

Revelation34 posted...

It says "Trump made very clear threats to the judge and jury," That isn't stated in post 50.

0/10

Entity13 posted...

It also shows more than half of Trump's post, which can easily be found in full if you, you know, looked for it somewhere that isn't the inside of Trump's rectal cavity.

What are you taking about? Trump's post is shown in it's entirety.

Revelation34 posted...

It says "Trump made very clear threats to the judge and jury," That isn't stated in post 50.

"IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

I'm not sure how much clearer you need a threat to get than that.

adjl posted...

"IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

he could be talking about playing a game of hide and seek

adjl posted...

"IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

I'm not sure how much clearer you need a threat to get than that.

Rev only believes the reality he fabricates.

Trump will win just like hes going to win 2nd term

Revelation34 posted...

What are you taking about? Trump's post is shown in it's entirety.

It cuts off for me at the start of "COMING." Like halfway into the C.

adjl posted...

"IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

I'm not sure how much clearer you need a threat to get than that.

Considering the security detail now granted to the judge? I think at least someone agrees. Now if only they'd agree to rescind Trump's bail, then there'd be a modicum of sanity in this mess, imo.

Entity13 posted...

Like halfway into the C.

>_>

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/8/1/AAFUswAAEuiN.jpg

This is actually a legitimate way to win tic-tac-toe.

potdnewb posted...

he could be talking about playing a game of hide and seek

Hey man, when the Don said to "take care of him," he meant to treat him to a nice dinner and a movie

adjl posted...

"IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

I'm not sure how much clearer you need a threat to get than that.

Where in that statement was a judge or jury mentioned?

Zareth posted...

Hey man, when the Don said to "take care of him," he meant to treat him to a nice dinner and a movie

like a well done steak and 3 ninjas high noon at mega mountain

Revelation34 posted...

Where in that statement was a judge or jury mentioned?

On its own, nowhere specific, though it is a general statement from a manchild with a dangerous cult following him. Coming less than a day after his arraignment? It becomes a simple matter of context, especially given his antics in the last seven years or more. You can piece two or more things together, right? Because if threatening the judge was not his intent, then that makes him an irresponsible moron, again with a dangerous cult who have been known to storm the US Capitol Building for him, attack, even kill, journalists for him, and so on. Common se4nse is going to need your brain to do more than stand by, Rev.

Revelation34 posted...

Where in that statement was a judge or jury mentioned?

The part where he said if they were coming for him he was going for them.

Common sense isn't common

Metalsonic66 posted...

Common sense isn't common

Doesn't need to be.

Entity13 posted...

On its own, nowhere specific, though it is a general statement from a manchild with a dangerous cult following him. Coming less than a day after his arraignment? It becomes a simple matter of context, especially given his antics in the last seven years or more. You can piece two or more things together, right? Because if threatening the judge was not his intent, then that makes him an irresponsible moron, again with a dangerous cult who have been known to storm the US Capitol Building for him, attack, even kill, journalists for him, and so on. Common se4nse is going to need your brain to do more than stand by, Rev.

Implications are not the same as an actual threat. Learn the constitution.

Revelation34 posted...

Implications are not the same as an actual threat. Learn the constitution.

I did, and that's nothing to do with it. Learn how law works, and furthermore how intent is found in court. Learn how context is key and what it means to have appropriate times or places to say or do certain things. Learn that when men smarter and more powerful than you are taking precautions against a general threat, then it means something. And if that is not enough, then maybe also learn to still your tongue and fingers because you are adding nothing to the conversation, not even valid questions worth anyone's time; at this point you are doing no more than baiting.

Revelation34 posted...

Where in that statement was a judge or jury mentioned?

The part where you actually use your brain to think about what's being said beyond the literal words on the page. The statement is being made in a context in which judges, lawyers, jury members, and witnesses are planning to "go after him" as they testify, make arguments, and ultimately seek to hold him accountable for the wrongdoing he has committed. He has overtly threatened anyone who "goes after him." You are allowed to conclude that 2+2=4 without consulting the Oxford Dictionary first.

Revelation34 posted...

Implications are not the same as an actual threat. Learn the constitution.

Uh... any reasonable person would take that as an actual threat.

Entity13 posted...

I did, and that's nothing to do with it. Learn how law works, and furthermore how intent is found in court. Learn how context is key and what it means to have appropriate times or places to say or do certain things. Learn that when men smarter and more powerful than you are taking precautions against a general threat, then it means something. And if that is not enough, then maybe also learn to still your tongue and fingers because you are adding nothing to the conversation, not even valid questions worth anyone's time; at this point you are doing no more than baiting.

The Constitution is law. There was no direct threat therefore no law
was broken.

Revelation34 posted...

The Constitution is law. There was no direct threat therefore no law
was broken.

Do you wear a seat belt?

Revelation34 posted...

The Constitution is law. There was no direct threat therefore no law
was broken.

You keep saying "constitution" are you trying to suggest this is protected by the first amendment? There is literally no other argument you could be trying to make with this. Threats are not protected speech, calls for his cultists to attack people is not protected speech.

Revelation34 posted...

There was no direct threat

He threatened anyone that goes against him. How is that not a direct threat to people that are currently preparing a case that goes against him?

Revelation34 posted...

The Constitution is law. There was no direct threat therefore no law
was broken.

You've never read the constitution have you? It's about 4 pages long, details how the government should be structured, and much of it has been rewritten or removed in amendments, or otherwise has no bearing whatsoever on your life because it has to do with deadlines for states to ratify the constitution that expired 200 years ago.

Is the constitution here in the room with us

As I am done responding to Rev's baiting in this topic, I will agree with you all that the Constitution, the law of the land for the government in how to conduct itself, has neither bearing nor determination in whether or not a threat has been issued. This would be like trying to fit pieces from separate-sized puzzles with differed themes. It would be equally irresponsible to mention how a bar and grill in Vermont does business as if that would tell us what one manchild means when he declares anyone going after him will have him going after them.

adjl posted...

He threatened anyone that goes against him. How is that not a direct threat to people that are currently preparing a case that goes against him?

Like I had mentioned before, this is the general threat. Pair with timing and events, and it is clear whom the message was meant for. These pieces do fit.

I like the idea that the only laws that can ever exist are directly related to the constitution.
Time to go shoot people because nothing says I can't.

Revelation34 posted...

Implications are not the same as an actual threat. Learn the constitution.

rev

you can't tell other people to learn the constitution when you, yourself, don't know it

Love ya sometimes Rev but you're playing a pretty weak defensive game here bruh.

I think I remember Rev being a huge Trumphumper, but like all unimportant things, I forgot. But wow...

Revelation34 posted...

It says "Trump made very clear threats to the judge and jury," That isn't stated in post 50.

Revelation34 posted...

Where in that statement was a judge or jury mentioned?

Revelation34 posted...

Implications are not the same as an actual threat. Learn the constitution.

...this is legitimately messed up. Like the stuff QAnon or the Capital Raiders might say. Implications are considered a threat. *mobster voice* "Nice place. Be a shame if someum happened ta it." is more than just a movie joke or meme. It's legally considered a threat. How was Rev not Banned already for these kinds of subversive posts?

I met John Cleese at a fan convention once and I asked him what was the inspiration behind his quote abou- and he cut me off before I could finish and answered Rev.

If he wasn't making a joke out of our nation I'd call him a stage 5 lolcow

Sandalphon posted...

I think I remember Rev being a huge Trumphumper, but like all unimportant things, I forgot. But wow...

...this is legitimately messed up. Like the stuff QAnon or the Capital Raiders might say. Implications are considered a threat. *mobster voice* "Nice place. Be a shame if someum happened ta it." is more than just a movie joke or meme. It's legally considered a threat. How was Rev not Banned already for these kinds of subversive posts?

Mods are conservatives.

On that note, the Constitution should be rewritten, ground up. Most other countries have overtime. We haven't due to a misplaced sense of pride.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

On that note, the Constitution should be rewritten, ground up. Most other countries have overtime. We haven't due to a misplaced sense of pride.

IT WAS SENT FROM GOD

ReturnOfFa posted...

IT WAS SENT FROM GOD

you are listening to alex jones too much considering 55 delegates helped write it
its not the book of mormon