- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DOJ coming after TD posters soon because of... MEMES?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 11:34 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 2/4/21 at 11:34 am to AggieHank86
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/21/21 at 5:11 pm
0
Posted on 2/4/21 at 11:35 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The DoJ has access to far more data than you or I. Given that the charge is (at best) a close call under the statute upon which they rely, I just don't believe that they would have pursued the case if they did not have pretty strong evidence on the "intent" element.
Appeal to authority. I thought you would know better than to argue logical fallacies.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 11:51 am to HubbaBubba
So many worry way too much about things that will never happen.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 11:55 am to MrLarson
quote:
I bet I won't go out in cuffs if they show up.
Nah, you’ll go out a little bitch in tears.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 12:09 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I see a significant difference between (1) a politician telling people that which he hopes to accomplish and (2) a person affirmatively-lying to a potential voter in an attempt to cancel his/her vote.
There is also a significant difference between trying to win someone's vote and attempting to prevent them from exercising the franchise.
So that’s it...politicians and democrats are allowed to lie and manipulate. That’s just “winning votes”.
There is no “I hope” or “I will fight for” in their quotes. It is “it will happen”. And they KNEW it wouldn’t be on the promised timeframe even if it DID happen.
They swayed votes based on blatant lies, misinformation, and borderline bribery. No and... no if... no but.
I know you see a difference. That’s because your logic is flawed.
BOTH instances misled people. BOTH instances include known and blatant lies. And BOTH instances would sway votes of mentally retarded idiots.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 12:48 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:So is the fact that 18 USC 241 states,
18 USC 241
It’s right here in the complaint: LINK
"If two or more person's..." This was one person.
"Injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate..." Nope. Being stupid is not being injured, oppressed, threatened or intimidated.
"If such acts included kidnapping, attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill..."
Nope, however, he killed it with humor because it was funny. Does that count?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 12:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:They would never make anything up, you know, like a Russian hoax or anything, right? Naw! That's just impossible!
The fact that the DoJ had specific data on the number of texts and their content indicates to me that they tabulated the data and thus that he registered for the service.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 1:36 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:You got 'em!quote:They would never make anything up, you know, like a Russian hoax or anything, right? Naw! That's just impossible
The fact that the DoJ had specific data on the number of texts and their content indicates to me that they tabulated the data and thus that he registered for the service.
No one should ever be prosecuted for any crime, because the prosecutor MIGHT be fabricating the factual recitation of the charging documents.
Or maybe we could do something really novel, like holding prosecutors to the burden of (1) convincing a Grand Jury to let them prosecute and then (2) convincing a Petit Jury of their facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nah, that would be crazy.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 1:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You got 'em!
No one should ever be prosecuted for any crime, because the prosecutor MIGHT be fabricating the factual recitation of the charging documents.
For example.. When Adam Schiff completely fabricated the wording of the transcript in the leadoff of the first impeachment? Except there was no MIGHT there.
Also, Just like no one should be exempted from any prosecution due to political affiliation. Except that happens almost on a daily basis now.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 2:01 pm to AggieHank86
I don’t know why you are so condescending when your entire argument is based upon a logical fallacy. Now you want to crawfish to “let’s see what the jury says”. Why would you need to do that? You already convicted him based upon the virtue of the prosecutor. You sure you have been to court? Ever?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 2:12 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
OK, then why arent dems who did the exact same thing being arrested? Is it only fraud when republicans do it because Trump is literally Hitler?
Because the Dems and many Republicans are corrupt and our system is so fractured that only the little guy gets crushed.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 2:17 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You mean like birddogging the opponents campaign? or claiming Hunter's laptop was a Russian hoax, or the Steele Dossier was not a Russian hoax, or Antifa doesn't exist, or the 2020 election was fraudfree .... that kind of fraud?
Yep that kinda fraud. This is only being prosecuted because Hillary voters were the target. If they were Trump voters nobody would bat an eye.
In spite of the fact that I dont like Hillary and I am an avid Trump supporter I am not so blinded by hatred that I agree with fraud if it benefits my team.
Wrong is wrong. It just sucks that only certain perpetrators are ever punished for crimes like this.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 2:37 pm to The 22nd Doctor
quote:
Nah, you’ll go out a little bitch in tears.
Only if they tear gas me when they breach the house.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 2:40 pm to CaTiger85
quote:My post was identical in tone with the post to which it was responsive. If another poster is sarcastic to me, I see no problem with responding in kind.
I don’t know why you are so condescending
quote:Link?
You already convicted him based upon the virtue of the prosecutor
Based upon the nature and language of the charging document, I infer that the DoJ has obtained evidence that the Defendant affirmatively registered with iVision. You are certainly free to disagree with that assessment. Hell, I specifically acknowledged that possibility on the immediately-preceding page.
If this guy did what is alleged, I tend to believe that the the Defendant set out with the affirmative goal of preventing other persons from casting legitimate ballots, and, yes, I think he thus probably committed a crime and should be punished for it. Again, if the facts are true as alleged, I reject the notion that he is being prosecuted "just for posting a meme." Again, you are free to disagree.
We will see whether the prosecutor meets the burden of proving his allegations.
It is exhausting typing every sentence on a message board as if it were an appellate brief, but it seems to be what you want to see ....
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News