The arrogance here is unbelievable. I really miss having discussions that included reasoning and respect.
Yeah, the time for reasoning is over. Now is the time to call out the liars and move on.
2 Likes
I think the Trump “legal team” on this was a bunch of Schmoos
Quite a change from you defending Sidney Powell as being such a great lawyer…
3 Likes
Trump snowflakes
Funny how I dont see that sidebar in emails from FD.
Until I add admin@fragiledeal.com as a contact in my yahoo mail, and enter “glitch99 via Fragile Deal” as the contact’s name. Then it displays in yahoo exactly like in your screenshot…
[quote=“GTFan, post:7810, topic:3532, full:true”]
So then why havent you moved on? No one has disagreed with this. You’re not calling out lies, you are calling out different beliefs. And as I said, it’s unbelievably arrogant to claim someone is lying about what they believe.
Either everyone agrees with you, or they’re just making it up. That attitude is the root of the whole problem.
Maybe that “audit” would hold more weight, had you not been so insistant this would be the result months before there were even any votes to count.
As I said, the optics you created suck. Just because you couldnt keep your mouths shut and treat all claims and concerns with any factsimile of respect. You just had to shout them down for merely being expressed. At this point, “they got away with it and there’s nothing we can do” is about the only way to get them to move on, and you proceded to crucify that message as well…
You arent going to stop until everyone gets in line, because anyone not politely and quietly in line behind you is inherently a threat to you. And that’s just outrageous to think that you might have to consider other opinions…
Give them some time. Not saying this is definitely going to happen, but charges can still be added. Since there are a lot of alleged criminals involved it could take a long time to engage in a heavily personalized analysis.
I’ve heard some talk of some state crimes related to weapons and things that occurred before the riot. While the Capitol building itself is subject to federal jurisdiction, I’m not sure where the lines are, so it’s possible some violent activities took place off federal property. Also, those who were arrested may be subject to additional charges as a result of the arrest - I’ve heard some reports about weapons on scene.
All that said, hopefully Trump does not pardon them as, honestly, US attorneys are generally more skilled, have significantly more resources, and have much bigger sticks.
1 Like
From a purely educational perspective, I’d be interested in a SCOTUS ruling on this. I don’t think they’ll ever take up a case like this though. In Nixon they took the case but stated that impeachment proceedings are not justiciable. Of course, that was on procedure of the proceedings, and not a question like this, which appears more substantive.
There is precedent for proceeding with impeachment proceedings after an official has resigned. There is also precedent for the refusal to proceed with an impeachment after the official resigned. There appears to be no indication that Trump is planning to resign.
I think he would still be entitled to secret service protection.
ETA: Read your next post. I still think he’s entitled to it under 3056, and don’t think it’s that much of a gray area (despite that fact that I’m very uncomfortable contradicting Vladeck), but I see and agree that it’s not a definite.
You have the nerve to suggest one of our posters on site here, “stop posting”.
Unbelievable!!
When I started posting on Fragile Deal, it was fun. Talking to others about money deals was great. It still is.
But this dude here is a disgrace. Suggested anyone that does not go with his ideas should be banned from the post. In my opinion he is the one who should go.
1 Like
Statistically speaking, the sample size number is not a “tiny sample size.” Perhaps you could argue that the sample was not appropriately developed, it should have been stratified (assuming it wasn’t), etc. But the “n” appears to be sufficient to reach a statistically significant result.
1 Like
xerty, we get it. You are 100% in favor of domestic terrorists and calls for violence and domestic unrest,. You support the Capitol terrorists and their assaults and killings and attempted murder, and armed militias threatening violence and kidnapping and assassination of public figures.
So which groups do you like most or are you a member of: Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, Qanon, KKK, neo-Nazis, neo-Confederates?
1 Like
I’m very surprised we can’t basically all agree on this (not necessarily specifically what you posted, but the underlying issue).
If one is in favor of net neutrality (which I think was the position of most Democrats), then one must agree that, at least in part, the government should have a say in companies banning certain people/groups/beliefs/whatever.
I would say that, to those who were not in favor of net neutrality (e.g., Pai, Trump’s (former?) FCC Chairman), understand that by arguing that Twitter/FB/etc should not be able to ban people or at least should be limited in their rights to ban, you are switching positions here.
2 Likes
Some comic relief: can we discuss why you’re both still using Yahoo? 
3 Likes
That’s correct. According to this site’s calculator, you’d have a margin of error of about 1% with a sample size N = 15000 if the population is approximately 1 million.
I have not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party.
1 Like
Gosh, that is funny. I laughed out loud!
I don’t, I use hotmail 
. I just had to experiment apples to apples to figure out his propaganda…
1 Like
You clearly don’t get it. He’s never remotely implies he’s in favor of any of it. You on the other hand, have repeatedly cherry picked which violence and unrest you object to, and what you endorse. As long as you hate the target, then the end justifies the means, right?
1 Like