This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end encryption is now enabled on your Android phone by default. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/
So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of security.
This is critical because it's the issue the DOJ highlighted in its lawsuit: "Apple is willing to make the iPhone less secure and less private... Text messages sent from iPhones to Android phones are unencrypted as a result of Apple's conduct. If Apple wanted to, Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone, which would instantly improve the privacy and security of iPhone
and other smartphone users."
Yet more proof that the US DOJ has no clue what they're talking about. :-\
A. Apple doesn't even use RCS ... yet! It is rumoured to be coming in
later this year ("in the fall" if you believe a Google post)
B. Apple messages are end-to-end encrypted, at least between Apple
devices using Apple's messaging app (for other apps it is up to
their developers, not Apple):
"Your iMessage and FaceTime conversations are encrypted end-to-end,
so they can't be read while they're sent between devices."
On 2024-04-01 00:55:13 +0000, Tamborino said:
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end encryption is now enabled on your Android phone by default. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/
So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of security.
This is critical because it's the issue the DOJ highlighted in its lawsuit: "Apple is willing to make the iPhone less secure and less private... Text messages sent from iPhones to Android phones are unencrypted as a result of Apple's conduct. If Apple wanted to, Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone, which would instantly improve the privacy and security of iPhone and other smartphone users."
Yet more proof that the US DOJ has no clue what they're talking about. :-\
A. Apple doesn't even use RCS ... yet! It is rumoured to be coming in
later this year ("in the fall" if you believe a Google post)
B. Apple messages are end-to-end encrypted, at least between Apple
devices using Apple's messaging app (for other apps it is up to
their developers, not Apple):
"Your iMessage and FaceTime conversations are encrypted end-to-end,
so they can't be read while they're sent between devices."
On 2024-04-01 00:55:13 +0000, Tamborino said:
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and
Apple's update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end
encryption is now enabled on your Android phone by default. >>https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone- >>16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/ So unlike >>iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between Android
users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android
users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of
security.
This is critical because it's the issue the DOJ highlighted in its
lawsuit: "Apple is willing to make the iPhone less secure and less >>private... Text messages sent from iPhones to Android phones are >>unencrypted as a result of Apple's conduct. If Apple wanted to,
Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to
Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone, which
would instantly improve the privacy and security of iPhone and
other smartphone users."
Yet more proof that the US DOJ has no clue what they're talking
about. :-\
A. Apple doesn't even use RCS ... yet! It is rumoured to be coming in
later this year ("in the fall" if you believe a Google post)
B. Apple messages are end-to-end encrypted, at least between Apple
devices using Apple's messaging app (for other apps it is up to
their developers, not Apple):
"Your iMessage and FaceTime conversations are encrypted end-to-end,
so they can't be read while they're sent between devices."
"If Apple wanted to, Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone..."
"If Apple wanted to, Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted
messages to Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone..."
If they allowed encryption between iPhone users and Android users it
would eliminate a key advantage of an organization being 100% iPhone.
My wife's company is 100% iPhone, for multiple reasons
(they could actually
use Android since they use Cortext for secure messaging since it's HIPAA compliant, while iMessage is not HIPAA compliant) mainly for the remote management (MDM) capability,
and the inability for employees to install any apps.
So she carries two phones, her personal Android and her
corporate iPhone.
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-04-01 00:55:13 +0000, Tamborino said:
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and
Apple's update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end
encryption is now enabled on your Android phone by default.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-
16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/ So unlike
iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between Android
users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android
users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of
security.
This is critical because it's the issue the DOJ highlighted in its
lawsuit: "Apple is willing to make the iPhone less secure and less
private... Text messages sent from iPhones to Android phones are
unencrypted as a result of Apple's conduct. If Apple wanted to,
Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to
Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone, which
would instantly improve the privacy and security of iPhone and
other smartphone users."
Yet more proof that the US DOJ has no clue what they're talking
about. :-\
A. Apple doesn't even use RCS ... yet! It is rumoured to be coming in
later this year ("in the fall" if you believe a Google post)
B. Apple messages are end-to-end encrypted, at least between Apple
devices using Apple's messaging app (for other apps it is up to
their developers, not Apple):
"Your iMessage and FaceTime conversations are encrypted end-to-end,
so they can't be read while they're sent between devices."
This is the relevant part of the article. There will not be encryption between Android and iOS users. The DOJ says Apple can make it happen
but are unwilling to.
If this is true then it looks like Apple is being the petulant child stamping their feet and saying "no, no, no..."
"So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and
Android users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level
of security."
"If Apple wanted to, Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone..."
This is the relevant part of the article. There will not be encryption
between Android and iOS users. The DOJ says Apple can make it happen
but are unwilling to.
More know-nothing bollocks from the US DOJ. Just read note A. above,
Apple is already planning to support RCS, in some form.
If this is true then it looks like Apple is being the petulant child
stamping their feet and saying "no, no, no..."
"So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and
Android users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level
of security."
Wrong ...
"Apple stated it will not use any type of proprietary
end-to-end encryption ¡V presumably referring to Google's
approach ¡X but did say it would work to make end-to-end
encryption part of the RCS standard."
Apple wants RCS to have a proper standard for encryption and not rely
on Google's version, which for any one who knows Google (or Microsoft's attempts to cripple HTML) knows is obviously a good thing. Just in
today's news is that Google's Chrome browser still collects data for
Google even when in the supposedly private 'Incognito' mode - Google
simply cannot be trusted, which is yet another good reason to avoid
Android OS. <https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-incognito-mode-data-deletion-settlement/>
"If Apple wanted to, Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted
messages to Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone..."
As above.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:08:28 +1300, Your Name wrote:
This is the relevant part of the article. There will not be encryption
between Android and iOS users. The DOJ says Apple can make it happen
but are unwilling to.
More know-nothing bollocks from the US DOJ. Just read note A. above,
Apple is already planning to support RCS, in some form.
Apple has no plans to fully support RCS end-to-end encryption.
That's what the DOJ suit is partially about.
If this is true then it looks like Apple is being the petulant child
stamping their feet and saying "no, no, no..."
"So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and
Android users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level
of security."
Wrong ...
Only the nut cases think Apple actually cares about them or their privacy.
"Apple stated it will not use any type of proprietary
end-to-end encryption – presumably referring to Google's
approach — but did say it would work to make end-to-end
encryption part of the RCS standard."
Apple does not want anyone, not even their own customers, to have the
privacy of RCS end-to-end encryption between Apple and Android users.
You've literally just quoted them saying they would allow it.
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end encryption is now enabled on your Android phone by default. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/
So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of security.
This is critical because it's the issue the DOJ highlighted in its lawsuit: "Apple is willing to make the iPhone less secure and less private... Text messages sent from iPhones to Android phones are unencrypted as a result of Apple's conduct. If Apple wanted to, Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone, which would instantly improve the privacy and security of iPhone
and other smartphone users."
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-04-01 00:55:13 +0000, Tamborino said:
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and
Apple's update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end
encryption is now enabled on your Android phone by default.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-
16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/ So unlike
iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between Android
users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android
users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of
security.
This is critical because it's the issue the DOJ highlighted in its
lawsuit: "Apple is willing to make the iPhone less secure and less
private... Text messages sent from iPhones to Android phones are
unencrypted as a result of Apple's conduct. If Apple wanted to,
Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to
Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone, which
would instantly improve the privacy and security of iPhone and
other smartphone users."
Yet more proof that the US DOJ has no clue what they're talking
about. :-\
A. Apple doesn't even use RCS ... yet! It is rumoured to be coming in
later this year ("in the fall" if you believe a Google post)
B. Apple messages are end-to-end encrypted, at least between Apple
devices using Apple's messaging app (for other apps it is up to
their developers, not Apple):
"Your iMessage and FaceTime conversations are encrypted end-to-end,
so they can't be read while they're sent between devices."
This is the relevant part of the article. There will not be encryption between Android and iOS users. The DOJ says Apple can make it happen
but are unwilling to. If this is true then it looks like Apple is
being the petulant child stamping their feet and saying "no, no, no..."
"So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
Android users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level
of security."
"If Apple wanted to, Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone..."
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 16:39:58 -0700, Alan wrote:
You've literally just quoted them saying they would allow it.
Read the reference a few thousand time and maybe you'll yet understand.
On 2024-04-01 00:55:13 +0000, Tamborino said:
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's
update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end encryption >> is now enabled on your Android phone by default.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/
So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android
users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of security. >>
This is critical because it's the issue the DOJ highlighted in its lawsuit: >> "Apple is willing to make the iPhone less secure and less private... Text
messages sent from iPhones to Android phones are unencrypted as a result of >> Apple's conduct. If Apple wanted to, Apple could allow iPhone users to send >> encrypted messages to Android users while still using iMessage on their
iPhone, which would instantly improve the privacy and security of iPhone
and other smartphone users."
Yet more proof that the US DOJ has no clue what they're talking about. :-\
A. Apple doesn't even use RCS ... yet! It is rumoured to be coming in
later this year ("in the fall" if you believe a Google post)
B. Apple messages are end-to-end encrypted, at least between Apple
devices using Apple's messaging app (for other apps it is up to
their developers, not Apple):
"Your iMessage and FaceTime conversations are encrypted end-to-end,
so they can't be read while they're sent between devices."
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-04-01 00:55:13 +0000, Tamborino said:
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's >>> update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end
encryption is now enabled on your Android phone by default.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/
So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android >>> users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of security. >>>
This is critical because it's the issue the DOJ highlighted in its
lawsuit: "Apple is willing to make the iPhone less secure and less
private... Text messages sent from iPhones to Android phones are
unencrypted as a result of Apple's conduct. If Apple wanted to, Apple
could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to Android users
while still using iMessage on their iPhone, which would instantly
improve the privacy and security of iPhone and other smartphone users."
Yet more proof that the US DOJ has no clue what they're talking about. :-\ >>
A. Apple doesn't even use RCS ... yet! It is rumoured to be coming in
later this year ("in the fall" if you believe a Google post)
B. Apple messages are end-to-end encrypted, at least between Apple
devices using Apple's messaging app (for other apps it is up to
their developers, not Apple):
"Your iMessage and FaceTime conversations are encrypted end-to-end,
so they can't be read while they're sent between devices."
Doj is picking on Poor apple.
Apple is just a small, old fashioned country telephone maker. They have never deliberately committed crimes or fraud, or screwed their
customers.
Sure, they've made mistakes, but all honest. This is all biden's fault.
He hates apple.
On 2024-04-03 22:54:04 +0000, Hank Rogers said:
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-04-01 00:55:13 +0000, Tamborino said:
Yet more proof that the US DOJ has no clue what they're talking about. :-\ >>>
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's >>>> update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end
encryption is now enabled on your Android phone by default.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/
So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android >>>> users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of
security.
This is critical because it's the issue the DOJ highlighted in its
lawsuit: "Apple is willing to make the iPhone less secure and less
private... Text messages sent from iPhones to Android phones are
unencrypted as a result of Apple's conduct. If Apple wanted to, Apple >>>> could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to Android users
while still using iMessage on their iPhone, which would instantly
improve the privacy and security of iPhone and other smartphone users." >>>
A. Apple doesn't even use RCS ... yet! It is rumoured to be coming in
later this year ("in the fall" if you believe a Google post)
B. Apple messages are end-to-end encrypted, at least between Apple
devices using Apple's messaging app (for other apps it is up to
their developers, not Apple):
"Your iMessage and FaceTime conversations are encrypted end-to-end,
so they can't be read while they're sent between devices."
Doj is picking on Poor apple.
Apple is just a small, old fashioned country telephone maker. They have
never deliberately committed crimes or fraud, or screwed their customers.
Sure, they've made mistakes, but all honest. This is all biden's fault.
He hates apple.
The glacial pace that government departments work at, it's far more likely Trump the Chump's fault and yet another reason for every sane American to bin the lunatic at their next election. :-p
So is trump. They are
much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever. Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
Both are forced to pay billion dollar fines for shit they didn't do.
Every true american feels sorry for both apple and trump. And most are willing to give them money to help bail them out.
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, every one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong.
Ever. Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or
business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
cases, wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone. Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate
cases, in most of which his guilt seems to be beyond doubt, in that the known facts or even his own statements prove his guilt, and potentially
he only has to be found guilty on *one* of those 91 charges to end up
in jail. Indeed, if he carries on threatening judges' families the way
that he now done *twice* already, most likely he will be adjudged to
have breached the terms of his bail, and go to jail to await trial
anyway. The only thing actually in doubt is whether the lumbering US
legal system can complete a case and thereby convict him before the election, but the first trial starts this month, so probably they will, despite his barrage of absurd claims of Presidential immunity, which,
as an appeal judge pointed out, would, if taken literally as claimed,
enable him to send the Seals to wipe out political opponents.
Both are forced to pay billion dollar fines for shit they didn't do.
I'm not going to comment on Apple, but the whole point of the Trump
fines is that it's shit he *DID* do, as determined by independent
juries in two courts of law.
Every true american feels sorry for both apple and trump. And most are
willing to give them money to help bail them out.
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, every
one else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases, wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, every one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases, wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in mostcivilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
All that proves is that he should have crossed the Rubicon after the
massive election theft of 2020 and started having lots of Democrats
put up against the wall and shot.
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, every one >>> else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
Why?
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, every
one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the greater evil.
 Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:WTF does TINEOE stand for?
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, every >>>>> one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
As long as our President was genuinely unpredictable Putin minded hisThis Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the greater evil. >>  Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely
compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
On 4/4/24 12:16 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju,
**every one else** wants him safely in jail where he can't cause
any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard
both candidates to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
WTF does TINEOE stand for?
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
On 4/4/24 12:16 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju,
every one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
WTF does TINEOE stand for?
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the greater
evil. Â Â Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely
compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
As long as our President was genuinely unpredictable Putin minded his
own business. Having a loose cannon on your side is frequently a good thing. In a pissing contest between our loose cannon and N. Korea's
loose cannon, guess who backs down.
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end encryption is now enabled on your Android phone by default. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/
So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of security.
Tamborino, 2024-04-01 02:55:
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's
update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
RCS *is* end-to-end encrypted. But this is not mandatory, so using unencrypted connections is possible. But the Google messaging app in
Android will show you if the recipient has RCS and also if the
connection is encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end encryption >> is now enabled on your Android phone by default.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/
So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android
users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of security.
But this is not the fault of RCS.
On 4/4/24 12:16 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, every >>>>>> one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
WTF does TINEOE stand for?
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the greater evil. >>>  Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely
compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
As long as our President was genuinely unpredictable Putin minded his
own business. Having a loose cannon on your side is frequently a good thing. In a pissing contest between our loose cannon and N. Korea's
loose cannon, guess who backs down.
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever. >>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised >> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
All that proves is that he should have crossed the Rubicon after the
massive election theft of 2020 and started having lots of Democrats
put up against the wall and shot.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever. >>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases, >>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised >>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a clear case of doing something wrong.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". Hypocrites the lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
All that proves is that he should have crossed the Rubicon after the
massive election theft of 2020 and started having lots of Democrats
put up against the wall and shot.
Do you even hear yourself? Is that really the sort of america you want to live in where there's no rule of law. People are targeted with violence simply for stating the truth.
Oh and the election wasn't stolen. Trump is simply a 6 year old sore loser.
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
In message <uuttdi$2o2ua$1@dont-email.me>
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
The reality, i.e. what was determined from the observable facts, was
that Trump was the one trying to steal the election. I'm surprised
that that has attracted so little attention.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a clear case of doing something wrong.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". Hypocrites the lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
All that proves is that he should have crossed the Rubicon after the
massive election theft of 2020 and started having lots of Democrats
put up against the wall and shot.
Do you even hear yourself? Is that really the sort of america you want to live in where there's no rule of law. People are targeted with violence simply for stating the truth.
In message <uuttdi$2o2ua$1@dont-email.me>
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
The reality, i.e. what was determined from the observable facts, was
that
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, every one >>>>> else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the greater evil. >>   Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
David Higton wrote:
In message <uuttdi$2o2ua$1@dont-email.me>
          Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
The reality, i.e. what was determined from the observable facts, was
that
...they stopped counting in the middle of the night, threw out the
observers, and trucked in enough fraudulent ballots to swing the
election.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:wrong. Ever.
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
business partner.Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil caseis a
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred he'djust
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of their own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution".Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have politically- motivated persecutions for made-up crimes, while Alvin Bragg refuses to prosecute violent street criminals.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju,
every one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the greater
evil. Â Â Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely
compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
In message <uuttdi$2o2ua$1@dont-email.me>
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
The reality, i.e. what was determined from the observable facts, was
that Trump was the one trying to steal the election. I'm surprised
that that has attracted so little attention.
The 90-odd cases he tried to attack the result with - and lost - shows it
was a non-story. Due process worked as intended.
Then, he let his petulance get the better of himself and lead a riot to the capitol.
Do you even hear yourself? Is that really the sort of america youwant to
live in where there's no rule of law. People are targeted with violence simply for stating the truth.
Laws don't rule. Only men do.
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, every oneWhile I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates >>>>>> to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm. >>>>>>
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the greater evil.
  Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely compromised by
Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
David Higton wrote:
In message <uuttdi$2o2ua$1@dont-email.me>
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
The reality, i.e. what was determined from the observable facts, was
that
...they stopped counting in the middle of the night,
As per their rules (in a few counties) laid down before the election began. People are allowed to sleep.
threw out the
observers,
Because they were trying to interfere with the count.
They were no longer observers.
and trucked in enough fraudulent ballots to swing the
election.
Didn't happen.
In all cases of voter fraud two things were discovered 1) in no instance
was there enough to come close to affect any vote, 2) most of the
fraudulent ballots were in favour of GOP candidates.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases, >>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a >>> clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation aren't just anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be
prosecuted.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred he'd just >>> be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of their >>> own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". Hypocrites the >>> lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have politically-
motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The right were desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as Trump. Again,
it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not how fair society works.
while Alvin Bragg refuses to
prosecute violent street criminals.
All that proves is that he should have crossed the Rubicon after the
massive election theft of 2020 and started having lots of Democrats
put up against the wall and shot.
Do you even hear yourself? Is that really the sort of america you want to >>> live in where there's no rule of law. People are targeted with violence
simply for stating the truth.
Laws don't rule.
False.
Only men do.
What about women? ;)
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, >>>>>>>> every oneWhile I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates >>>>>>> to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm. >>>>>>>
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the greater >>>>> evil.   Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely
compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the United States can't? That's a tell right there.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
David Higton wrote:
In message <uuttdi$2o2ua$1@dont-email.me>
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
The reality, i.e. what was determined from the observable facts, was >>>>> that
...they stopped counting in the middle of the night,
As per their rules (in a few counties) laid down before the election began. >>> People are allowed to sleep.
Only to resume counting a relatively short time later?
Furthermore, if you are counting mail-in votes (which should be
banned), you should be required to remain in that room until it's
DONE. No exceptions.
Says who? It'll solve nothing.
There's only one reason why you want to ban mail-in ballots.
threw out the
observers,
Because they were trying to interfere with the count.
No they weren't.
They were no longer observers.
They were observers.
and trucked in enough fraudulent ballots to swing the
election.
Didn't happen.
They had overwhelming motive and opportunity. Therefore, it is
reasonable to shift the burden of proof to those who claim the
election was clean.
Already happened. All of Trump's cases claiming the above were either dismissed or found against him. 0/62 is an impressive failure rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election
You keep crying.
In all cases of voter fraud two things were discovered 1) in no instance >>> was there enough to come close to affect any vote, 2) most of the
fraudulent ballots were in favour of GOP candidates.
"Cases of voter fraud" as reported by the fake media, which simply
does not report cases of fraud in favor of Democrat candidates.
lol. If you really believe this, living life must be difficult for you.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone. >>>>>>
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation aren't just
anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be
prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
Why? Civil law is just as important.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and shouldn't face trial. The courts should decide.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it >>>>> wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred he'd just >>>>> be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases, >>>>>>All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of their >>>>> own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have politically- >>>> motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The right were
desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as Trump. Again, >>> it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not how fair >>> society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
while Alvin Bragg refuses to
prosecute violent street criminals.
All that proves is that he should have crossed the Rubicon after the >>>>>> massive election theft of 2020 and started having lots of Democrats >>>>>> put up against the wall and shot.
Do you even hear yourself? Is that really the sort of america you want to >>>>> live in where there's no rule of law. People are targeted with violence >>>>> simply for stating the truth.
Laws don't rule.
False.
Not false. "Rule of law" is a political ideal, a fiction.
It's the basis for civil society.
Only men do.
What about women? ;)
Women shouldn't be in politics.
Totally not surprised you'd be a misogynist.
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, every oneWhile I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates >>>>>>>> to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm. >>>>>>>>
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the greater evil.
  Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely compromised
by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the United
States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR shells?
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, >>>>>>>>>> every oneWhile I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm. >>>>>>>>>
candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the
greater evil. Â Â Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in? >>>>>>
compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the United >>> States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR shells?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
David Higton wrote:
In message <uuttdi$2o2ua$1@dont-email.me>
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh and the election wasn't stolen.
The reality, i.e. what was determined from the observable facts, was >>>>>> that
...they stopped counting in the middle of the night,
As per their rules (in a few counties) laid down before the election
began.
People are allowed to sleep.
Only to resume counting a relatively short time later?
Furthermore, if you are counting mail-in votes (which should be
banned), you should be required to remain in that room until it's
DONE. No exceptions.
Says who? It'll solve nothing.
There's only one reason why you want to ban mail-in ballots.
threw out the
observers,
Because they were trying to interfere with the count.
No they weren't.
They were no longer observers.
They were observers.
and trucked in enough fraudulent ballots to swing the
election.
Didn't happen.
They had overwhelming motive and opportunity. Therefore, it is
reasonable to shift the burden of proof to those who claim the
election was clean.
Already happened. All of Trump's cases claiming the above were either
dismissed or found against him. 0/62 is an impressive failure rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election
All that proves is that the courts are thoroughly corrupt. A lot of those cases were dismissed on procedural grounds.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, >>>>>>>>>> every oneWhile I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm. >>>>>>>>>
candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the
greater evil. Â Â Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in? >>>>>>
compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the United >>> States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR shells?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
Instead, we have politically-
motivated persecutions for made-up crimes
On 2024-04-05 05:42, Arno Welzel wrote:
Tamborino, 2024-04-01 02:55:
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's >>> update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
RCS *is* end-to-end encrypted. But this is not mandatory, so using
unencrypted connections is possible. But the Google messaging app in
Android will show you if the recipient has RCS and also if the
connection is encrypted.
Incorrect.
RCS as implemented by Google has end-to-end encryption.
The RCS standard does not have encryption as a part of it.
Apple is not prepared to adopt Google's encryption, and given that
Google can't be trust with your privacy (Google Chrome sweeping up information while in incognito mode, anyone?), can you blame Apple?
On 2024-04-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-04-11 19:55, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, >>>>>>>>>>>> every oneWhile I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both >>>>>>>>>>> candidates
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm. >>>>>>>>>>>
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the >>>>>>>>> greater evil.   Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely
compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the United >>>>> States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR shells?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
And I forgot to ask:
Where do you get your supposed "facts" about how many missiles and
shells Russia can produce?
Straight from Mother Russia, of course.
On 2024-04-11 19:55, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, every oneWhile I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both candidates >>>>>>>>>> to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm. >>>>>>>>>>
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the greater evil.
  Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely compromised
by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the United >>>> States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR shells?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
Out of date.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
Out of date.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
Out of date.
But moreover, this in no way supports the idea that the US GDP figures are fake.
All it shows is that the US needs to ramp up its production...
...which it is doing:
<https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/us-army-is-close-to-producing-80000-155mm-shells-per-month/>
<https://www.army.mil/article/273152/us_army_and_industry_partners_mobilize_to_boost_us_artillery_production>
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-11 19:55, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange >>>>>>>>>>>> Juju, every one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more >>>>>>>>>>>> harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both >>>>>>>>>>> candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with.
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the >>>>>>>>> greater evil.   Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he >>>>>>>>> was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely >>>>>>>> compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the
United
States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR shells?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
Out of date.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
Out of date.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
Out of date.
But moreover, this in no way supports the idea that the US GDP figures
are fake.
All it shows is that the US needs to ramp up its production...
Which will take years, if at all.
...which it is doing:
<https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/us-army-is-close-to-producing-80000-155mm-shells-per-month/>
<https://www.army.mil/article/273152/us_army_and_industry_partners_mobilize_to_boost_us_artillery_production>
Which is not enough:
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-its-production-artillery-shells-has-soared-by-nearly-150-year-2024-03-21/
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-04-11 19:55, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, >>>>>>>>>>>>> every one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more >>>>>>>>>>>>> harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both >>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with. >>>>>>>>>>
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the >>>>>>>>>> greater evil.   Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he >>>>>>>>>> was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely >>>>>>>>> compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the >>>>>> United
States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR shells? >>>>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
And I forgot to ask:
Where do you get your supposed "facts" about how many missiles and
shells Russia can produce?
Straight from Mother Russia, of course.
The approximate number of cruise missiles Russia has expended in the
Ukraine is known from observations.
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
On 2024-04-12 23:05, Anonymous wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-04-11 19:55, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> every one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both >>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with. >>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the >>>>>>>>>>> greater evil.   Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely >>>>>>>>>> compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the United
States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR shells? >>>>>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
And I forgot to ask:
Where do you get your supposed "facts" about how many missiles and
shells Russia can produce?
Straight from Mother Russia, of course.
The approximate number of cruise missiles Russia has expended in the
Ukraine is known from observations.
But not the number that they've manufactured, doofus.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:Not morally.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone. >>>>>>>>
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong. >>>>
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one >>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the CJS for a long time.
If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
charged?
Not yet. Here's hoping...
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation aren't just >>>>> anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be
prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
Why? Civil law is just as important.
Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that
in the criminal system.
Still evidence of wrongdoing.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and shouldn't face >>> trial. The courts should decide.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it >>>>>>> wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases, >>>>>>>>All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have politically- >>>>>> motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The right were >>>>> desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as Trump. Again, >>>>> it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not how fair >>>>> society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-12 23:05, Anonymous wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-04-11 19:55, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juju,
every one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both >>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the >>>>>>>>>>>> greater evil.   Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he >>>>>>>>>>>> was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely >>>>>>>>>>> compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what?
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and >>>>>>>> the United
States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR
shells?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
And I forgot to ask:
Where do you get your supposed "facts" about how many missiles and
shells Russia can produce?
Straight from Mother Russia, of course.
The approximate number of cruise missiles Russia has expended in the
Ukraine is known from observations.
But not the number that they've manufactured, doofus.
The United States produces some 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles a year.
Russia has expended somewhere around 5,000 similar missiles as of a
year ago. Russia hasn't run out.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil >>>>>>>> case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything >>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or >>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two >>>>>>>>>> civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in >>>>>>>>>> most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing >>>>>>>>>> someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something >>>>>> wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've >>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually
assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by
the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
charged?
Not yet. Here's hoping...
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation aren't >>>>>> just
anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be
prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
Why? Civil law is just as important.
Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that
in the criminal system.
Still evidence of wrongdoing.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and shouldn't
face
trial. The courts should decide.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. >>>>>>>> If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred >>>>>>>> he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate >>>>>>>>>> cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one >>>>>>>> of their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution".
Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have
politically-
motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The right >>>>>> were
desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as Trump. >>>>>> Again,
it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not
how fair
society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one, if you really want to get into that debate.
Also, Bragg hasn't told us what underlying felony Trump allegedly
committed.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
When everyone is carrying a gun you can't differentiate between the good
and bad guys. When you ban guns the bad guys are easy to spot.
But "muh freedom" is more important. Idiots the lot of them.--
On 4/14/24 2:34 AM, Chris wrote:
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
When everyone is carrying a gun you can't differentiate between the good
and bad guys. When you ban guns the bad guys are easy to spot.
Then what? Call a cop and maybe one will show up in half an hour?
But "muh freedom" is more important. Idiots the lot of them.
On 2024-04-14 10:38, The Real Bev wrote:Canadians are just nicer than USians. OTOH, "they're not even a real
On 4/14/24 2:34 AM, Chris wrote:
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men. >>>
When everyone is carrying a gun you can't differentiate between the good >>> and bad guys. When you ban guns the bad guys are easy to spot.
Then what? Call a cop and maybe one will show up in half an hour?
But "muh freedom" is more important. Idiots the lot of them.
You know, Canada is pretty much identical to the US from a cultural/socio-economic standpoint and yet there is this one weird thing:
We have far FAR fewer people getting killed by firearms; more then 5
times fewer.
On 4/14/24 10:43 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 10:38, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/14/24 2:34 AM, Chris wrote:
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no >>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be
men.
When everyone is carrying a gun you can't differentiate between the
good
and bad guys. When you ban guns the bad guys are easy to spot.
Then what? Call a cop and maybe one will show up in half an hour?
But "muh freedom" is more important. Idiots the lot of them.
You know, Canada is pretty much identical to the US from a
cultural/socio-economic standpoint and yet there is this one weird thing:
We have far FAR fewer people getting killed by firearms; more then 5
times fewer.
Canadians are just nicer than USians. OTOH, "they're not even a real country anyway!"
On 2024-04-14 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:Not worth the full effort.
On 4/14/24 10:43 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 10:38, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/14/24 2:34 AM, Chris wrote:
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no >>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be >>>>> men.
When everyone is carrying a gun you can't differentiate between the >>>>> good
and bad guys. When you ban guns the bad guys are easy to spot.
Then what? Call a cop and maybe one will show up in half an hour?
But "muh freedom" is more important. Idiots the lot of them.
You know, Canada is pretty much identical to the US from a
cultural/socio-economic standpoint and yet there is this one weird thing: >>>
We have far FAR fewer people getting killed by firearms; more then 5
times fewer.
Canadians are just nicer than USians. OTOH, "they're not even a real
country anyway!"
That's your best is it?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>So what?
Do you notice anything about that chart?
On 4/14/24 11:13 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/14/24 10:43 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 10:38, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/14/24 2:34 AM, Chris wrote:
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society
there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to >>>>>> be men.
When everyone is carrying a gun you can't differentiate between
the good
and bad guys. When you ban guns the bad guys are easy to spot.
Then what? Call a cop and maybe one will show up in half an hour?
But "muh freedom" is more important. Idiots the lot of them.
You know, Canada is pretty much identical to the US from a
cultural/socio-economic standpoint and yet there is this one weird
thing:
We have far FAR fewer people getting killed by firearms; more then 5
times fewer.
Canadians are just nicer than USians. OTOH, "they're not even a real
country anyway!"
That's your best is it?
Not worth the full effort.
We have lots of guns and lots of criminals. More than we have cops.
Aside from wishing, and in the full knowledge that this situation will continue for the indefinite future, what do you think the average law-abiding citizen should do in case of attack by a criminal?
Yeah, most people don't carry. Would there be more or less crime if
armed criminals KNEW that their intended victims were NOT carrying?
That's all the effort I'm going to put into an argument that's gone on
for decades.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
Do you notice anything about that chart?
So what?
On 2024-04-13 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong.
Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business
partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most >>>>>>>>>>> civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've >>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially >>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the >>> CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
charged?
Not yet. Here's hoping...
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation aren't just >>>>>>> anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be >>>>>>> prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
Why? Civil law is just as important.
Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that
in the criminal system.
Still evidence of wrongdoing.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and shouldn't face >>>>> trial. The courts should decide.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it >>>>>>>>> wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases, >>>>>>>>>>All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have politically-
motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The right were >>>>>>> desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as Trump. Again,
it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not how fair
society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one, >> if you really want to get into that debate.
Also, Bragg hasn't told us what underlying felony Trump allegedly committed.
Sure he has.
It is literally in the indictments.
<https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment>
I'll give you one example:
'THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE , in
violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to
defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise,
to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the
Trump Organization.'
That's a FELONY, doofus.
There are 33 more listed there.
On 2024-04-13 22:03, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-12 23:05, Anonymous wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-04-11 19:55, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the >>>>>>>>>>>>> greater evil.   Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely >>>>>>>>>>>> compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what? >>>>>>>>>>>>
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the United
States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR shells? >>>>>>>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
And I forgot to ask:
Where do you get your supposed "facts" about how many missiles and >>>>>> shells Russia can produce?
Straight from Mother Russia, of course.
The approximate number of cruise missiles Russia has expended in the
Ukraine is known from observations.
But not the number that they've manufactured, doofus.
The United States produces some 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles a year.
Russia has expended somewhere around 5,000 similar missiles as of a
year ago. Russia hasn't run out.
What does that prove, doofus?
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've >>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially >>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the >>> CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one, >> if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
When everyone is carrying a gun
you can't differentiate between the good
and bad guys. When you ban guns the bad guys are easy to spot.
But "muh freedom" is more important. Idiots the lot of them.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-13 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a >>>>>>>>>> civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or >>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two >>>>>>>>>>>> civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in >>>>>>>>>>>> most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing >>>>>>>>>>>> someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done
something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong?
You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually
assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice,
especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well
by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
charged?
Not yet. Here's hoping...
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation
aren't just
anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be >>>>>>>> prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
Why? Civil law is just as important.
Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that
in the criminal system.
Still evidence of wrongdoing.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and
shouldn't face
trial. The courts should decide.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he >>>>>>>>>> is. If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from >>>>>>>>>> Fred he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate >>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until >>>>>>>>>> one of their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". >>>>>>>>>> Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have >>>>>>>>> politically-
motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The
right were
desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as
Trump. Again,
it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not >>>>>>>> how fair
society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men,
for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Also, Bragg hasn't told us what underlying felony Trump allegedly
committed.
Sure he has.
No he hasn't.
It is literally in the indictments.
<https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment>
I'll give you one example:
'THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses
the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST
DEGREE , in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The
defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about
February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another
crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a
false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an
invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record
of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the
Trump Organization.'
That's a FELONY, doofus.
There are 33 more listed there.
Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an UNDERLYING felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-13 22:03, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-12 23:05, Anonymous wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-04-11 19:55, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orange Juju,
every one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> greater evil.   Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely >>>>>>>>>>>>> compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and >>>>>>>>>> the United
States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR >>>>>>>>> shells?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
And I forgot to ask:
Where do you get your supposed "facts" about how many missiles and >>>>>>> shells Russia can produce?
Straight from Mother Russia, of course.
The approximate number of cruise missiles Russia has expended in the >>>>> Ukraine is known from observations.
But not the number that they've manufactured, doofus.
The United States produces some 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles a year.
Russia has expended somewhere around 5,000 similar missiles as of a
year ago. Russia hasn't run out.
What does that prove, doofus?
That Russia can outproduce the United States in weaponry at the very
least.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a >>>>>>>>>> civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or >>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two >>>>>>>>>>>> civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in >>>>>>>>>>>> most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing >>>>>>>>>>>> someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done
something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong?
You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually
assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice,
especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well
by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like
you'd
prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men,
for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
When everyone is carrying a gun
But not everyone carries a gun.
On 2024-04-14 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-13 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most
civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>
is a
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've >>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially >>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL! >>>>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
charged?
Not yet. Here's hoping...
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation aren't just
anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be >>>>>>>>> prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
Why? Civil law is just as important.
Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that
in the criminal system.
Still evidence of wrongdoing.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and shouldn't face
trial. The courts should decide.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred he'd
just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". >>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have politically-
motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The right were
desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as Trump. Again,
it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not how fair
society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Also, Bragg hasn't told us what underlying felony Trump allegedly committed.
Sure he has.
No he hasn't.
It is literally in the indictments.
<https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment>
I'll give you one example:
'THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the >>> defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE ,
in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in
the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with >>> intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the
commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of
an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017,
marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and >>> maintained by the Trump Organization.'
That's a FELONY, doofus.
There are 33 more listed there.
Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an UNDERLYING
felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
You don't understand the law.
There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification was undertaken
in furtherance of.
On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most
civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>
is a
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've >>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially >>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL! >>>>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd >>> prefer the wild west.Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men. >>
When everyone is carrying a gun
But not everyone carries a gun.
The simple fact is:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
Deal with it.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've >>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially >>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL! >>>>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd >>> prefer the wild west.Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men. >>
No one needs vigilantes.
When everyone is carrying a gun
But not everyone carries a gun.
It wasn't meant literally.
On 2024-04-14 19:49, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-13 22:03, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-12 23:05, Anonymous wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-04-11 19:55, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-10 23:28, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-09 23:14, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:44, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/4/24 9:10 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-03 18:51, Sn!pe wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only the MAGA cult disciples feel 'sorry' for the Orange Juju,
every one
else wants him safely in jail where he can't cause any more harm.
While I'm impartial towards US politics as I regard both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
to be unspeakable, TINEOE.
This Is Not End Of Everything? Best I could come up with. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
Trump is better than Biden. Period. You vote against the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greater evil.   Besides, did Trump actually hurt you when he was in?
Trump is a lying, cheating, defrauding conman who is severely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compromised by Putin.
What did Biden do that actually hurt you?
Was it the falling unemployment?
The GPD growth.. ...the record stock market... ...what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
United States GDP is fake and gay.
Yes.
Every fact presented with which you disagree is fake.
Why is Russia able to produce enough missiles and shells, and the United
States can't? That's a tell right there.
And where do you get these supposed "facts"?
Where do you get that the US can't produce enough missiles OR shells?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/08/us-weapons-manufacturing-ukraine/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/ukraine-critical-ammo-shortage-us-nato-grapple/index.html
And I forgot to ask:
Where do you get your supposed "facts" about how many missiles and >>>>>>>> shells Russia can produce?
Straight from Mother Russia, of course.
The approximate number of cruise missiles Russia has expended in the >>>>>> Ukraine is known from observations.
But not the number that they've manufactured, doofus.
The United States produces some 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles a year.
Russia has expended somewhere around 5,000 similar missiles as of a
year ago. Russia hasn't run out.
What does that prove, doofus?
That Russia can outproduce the United States in weaponry at the very
least.
Simply wrong, doofus.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a >>>>>>>>>>>> civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost >>>>>>>>>>>>>> two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done
something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? >>>>>>>> You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually >>>>>>>> assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice,
especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated
well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth.
LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like
you'd
prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and
proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men,
for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no >>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be
men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
When everyone is carrying a gun
But not everyone carries a gun.
The simple fact is:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
Deal with it.
Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
gun?
And why the focus on the "developed world"?
Mexico has fierce gun lawsAnd there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
and a much higher murder rate.
Where do you get your supposed "facts" about how many missiles and >>>>>>>>> shells Russia can produce?
Straight from Mother Russia, of course.
The approximate number of cruise missiles Russia has expended in the >>>>>>> Ukraine is known from observations.
But not the number that they've manufactured, doofus.
The United States produces some 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles a year. >>>>> Russia has expended somewhere around 5,000 similar missiles as of a
year ago. Russia hasn't run out.
What does that prove, doofus?
That Russia can outproduce the United States in weaponry at the very
least.
Simply wrong, doofus.
The industrial base of the United States has been hollowed out, and we
aren't producing more because we CAN'T. Stop being a retard.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/02/06/supplier-bottlenecks-threaten-us-navy-effort-to-grow-arms-stockpiles/
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-13 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a >>>>>>>>>>>> civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost >>>>>>>>>>>>>> two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done
something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? >>>>>>>> You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually >>>>>>>> assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice,
especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated
well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth.
LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
charged?
Not yet. Here's hoping...
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation >>>>>>>>>> aren't just
anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be >>>>>>>>>> prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
Why? Civil law is just as important.
Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that >>>>>>> in the criminal system.
Still evidence of wrongdoing.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and
shouldn't face
trial. The courts should decide.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he >>>>>>>>>>>> is. If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from >>>>>>>>>>>> Fred he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until >>>>>>>>>>>> one of their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". >>>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have >>>>>>>>>>> politically-
motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The >>>>>>>>>> right were
desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>> Trump. Again,
it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's >>>>>>>>>> not how fair
society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and
proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men,
for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Also, Bragg hasn't told us what underlying felony Trump allegedly
committed.
Sure he has.
No he hasn't.
It is literally in the indictments.
<https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment>
I'll give you one example:
'THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment,
accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN
THE FIRST DEGREE , in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as
follows: The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on
or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to
commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof,
made and caused a false entry in the business records of an
enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14,
2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and
kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.'
That's a FELONY, doofus.
There are 33 more listed there.
Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an
UNDERLYING
felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
You don't understand the law.
There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification was
undertaken in furtherance of.
Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
On 2024-04-15 22:09, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-13 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a >>>>>>>>>>>>> civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done >>>>>>>>>>> something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? >>>>>>>>> You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually >>>>>>>>> assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice,
especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well >>>>>>> by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL! >>>>>>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
charged?
Not yet. Here's hoping...
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation >>>>>>>>>>> aren't just
anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be >>>>>>>>>>> prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
Why? Civil law is just as important.
Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that >>>>>>>> in the criminal system.
Still evidence of wrongdoing.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and
shouldn't face
trial. The courts should decide.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he >>>>>>>>>>>>> is. If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until >>>>>>>>>>>>> one of their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have >>>>>>>>>>>> politically-
motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The >>>>>>>>>>> right were
desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>>> Trump. Again,
it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not >>>>>>>>>>> how fair
society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, >>>>>> for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Also, Bragg hasn't told us what underlying felony Trump allegedly >>>>>> committed.
Sure he has.
No he hasn't.
It is literally in the indictments.
<https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment> >>>>>
I'll give you one example:
'THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses >>>>> the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST >>>>> DEGREE , in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The >>>>> defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about
February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another >>>>> crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a >>>>> false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an
invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record >>>>> of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the >>>>> Trump Organization.'
That's a FELONY, doofus.
There are 33 more listed there.
Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an UNDERLYING >>>> felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
You don't understand the law.
There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification was
undertaken in furtherance of.
Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
Federal election contribution crimes.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-15 22:09, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-13 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conviction.
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil case is a
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done >>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally >>>>>>>>>> wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually >>>>>>>>>> assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, >>>>>>>> especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated >>>>>>>> well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the
truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
charged?
Not yet. Here's hoping...
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
Why? Civil law is just as important.Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation >>>>>>>>>>>> aren't just
anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd >>>>>>>>>>>> rightly be
prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil. >>>>>>>>>>
Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that >>>>>>>>> in the criminal system.
Still evidence of wrongdoing.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and >>>>>>>>>> shouldn't face
trial. The courts should decide.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he is. If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order >>>>>>>>>>>>>> until one of their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's
"persecution". Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have >>>>>>>>>>>>> politically-
motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The >>>>>>>>>>>> right were
desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>>>> Trump. Again,
it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's >>>>>>>>>>>> not how fair
society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and >>>>>>>>>>> proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to >>>>>>>>>>> anyone or
anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable
men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Also, Bragg hasn't told us what underlying felony Trump allegedly >>>>>>> committed.
Sure he has.
No he hasn't.
It is literally in the indictments.
<https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment> >>>>>>
I'll give you one example:
'THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment,
accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS >>>>>> IN THE FIRST DEGREE , in violation of Penal Law §175.10,
committed as follows: The defendant, in the County of New York and >>>>>> elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud
and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the
commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business >>>>>> records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen
dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump >>>>>> Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.' >>>>>>
That's a FELONY, doofus.
There are 33 more listed there.
Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an
UNDERLYING
felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
You don't understand the law.
There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification was
undertaken in furtherance of.
Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
Federal election contribution crimes.
Likely. And he probably used an insecure android phone to commit the
crimes. That's how he got caught.
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
needing guns for "self-defence".
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a >>>>>>>>>>>> civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost >>>>>>>>>>>>>> two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done
something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? >>>>>>>> You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually >>>>>>>> assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice,
especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated
well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth.
LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened
tip?
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened tip?
Do you believe that we, outside the US, do not live in constant fear of
being attacked despite not have guns readily to hand? Not only do we have less violent crime we also fear violent crime less.
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened
tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened >>> tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law enforcement is too far away to be protective?
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive
to a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks
away. What should she have done?
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
sharpened tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law enforcement is too far away to be protective?
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
What should she have done?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law enforcement is too far away to be protective?
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
What should she have done?
On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:Like Mexico...
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
sharpened tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
enforcement is too far away to be protective?
The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let violent people easy access to weapons.
Bend over and smile?A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
What should she have done?
Same as in any modern and evolved country.
The Real Bev wrote on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 23:20:37 -0700 :
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Whoever said that the US is "more violent" is an idiot as many countries
have far more violence but even so, the purpose of guns being in the constitution is a fundamental right based on keeping the government honest.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
enforcement is too far away to be protective?
Very few countries, and perhaps almost none to none, have the demographic
mix of peoples and cultures that the USA has. Even fewer have the size.
Comparing straight numbers to those of puny places like New Zealand, Australia, Canada or England, for example, to the USA is ridiculous, where the sizes and demographics are completely different (unless normalized).
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
What should she have done?
The fundamental right of a gun in the USA is not related to protection from individuals, but to the fundamental nature of a government of the people.
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
sharpened tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law enforcement is too far away to be protective?
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
What should she have done?
On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness. >>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without >>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
sharpened tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
enforcement is too far away to be protective?
The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
violent people easy access to weapons.
Like Mexico...
Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive
to a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks
away. What should she have done?
Same as in any modern and evolved country.
Bend over and smile?
She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night
in a "safe" neighborhood. He jumped into her car. Perhaps she should have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their right
to decent treatment. Perhaps no weapon is required if they are
physically threatening. We should all be allowed to protect our own lives. Period.
The Real Bev wrote on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 23:20:37 -0700 :
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Whoever said that the US is "more violent" is an idiot as many countries
have far more violence but even so, the purpose of guns being in the constitution is a fundamental right based on keeping the government honest.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
enforcement is too far away to be protective?
Very few countries, and perhaps almost none to none, have the demographic
mix of peoples and cultures that the USA has. Even fewer have the size.
Comparing straight numbers to those of puny places like New Zealand, Australia, Canada or England, for example, to the USA is ridiculous, where the sizes and demographics are completely different (unless normalized).
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
What should she have done?
The fundamental right of a gun in the USA is not related to protection from individuals, but to the fundamental nature of a government of the people.
On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:violent people easy access to weapons.
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness. >>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without >>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will >>>> >>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being >>>> >>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the >>>>
sharpened tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law >> >>>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
Like Mexico...
Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive
to >> a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks
away. >> What should she have done?
Same as in any modern and evolved country.
Bend over and smile?
She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night
in a "safe" neighborhood. He jumped into her car. Perhaps she should
have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their
right to decent treatment. Perhaps no weapon is required if they are physically threatening. We should all be allowed to protect our own
lives. Period.
-- Cheers, Bev
"People are too stupid to realize they are."
--JoHn DoH KeLm
On 2024-04-18 12:13, The Real Bev wrote:No. There are a lot of stupid people out there. But, with certain exceptions, we should have that right.
On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness. >>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without >>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being >>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
sharpened tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than>>>>> other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
enforcement is too far away to be protective?
The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
violent people easy access to weapons.
Like Mexico...
Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive >>>> to a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks
away. What should she have done?
Same as in any modern and evolved country.
Bend over and smile?
She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night
in a "safe" neighborhood. He jumped into her car. Perhaps she should
have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their right
to decent treatment. Perhaps no weapon is required if they are
physically threatening. We should all be allowed to protect our own
lives. Period.
So again, yes or no:
Are you advocating that every person carries a firearm on his or her
person at all times?
On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:Black swan event. Other ways of mass killing that don't involve guns.
On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:violent people easy access to weapons.
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness. >>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without >>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will >>>> >>>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being >>>> >>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the >>>> >>>>>> sharpened tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than>>>>> other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law >> >>>>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
Like Mexico...
Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
With the possible exception of the cars, all of those personal
'weapons' are impossible to use to kill and injure lots of people in a
short space of time ... unlike a moron with a (semi)automatic gun
spraying bullets around.
The Swiss and possibly the Israelis are required to own guns. That'sA few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive >>>> to >> a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks >>>> away. >> What should she have done?
Same as in any modern and evolved country.
Bend over and smile?
She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night
in a "safe" neighborhood. He jumped into her car. Perhaps she should
have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
A lot of common sense things are alien behaviour in America: owning
guns, not wearing seatbelts, electing lunatics as the President, not
knowing how to spell the words like "colour" or "aluminium", ... :-\
Far fewer mass shootings by loonies than one-on-one or gang squabbles.If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their
right to decent treatment. Perhaps no weapon is required if they are >> physically threatening. We should all be allowed to protect our own
lives. Period.
The number of people who successfully "protect their own lives" by
owning a gun is FAR FAR FAR outweighed by the number of innocent people> killed or seriuously injured by a looney with a gun.
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting
people. The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
On 4/18/24 3:46 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:'weapons' are impossible to use to kill and injure lots of people in a
On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:With the possible exception of the cars, all of those personal
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let >>>> violent people easy access to weapons.
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people. >>>>>>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without >>>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than >>>>>> other countries similar to it.Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will >>>>
being >>>> >>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrelladefinitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from
with the >>>> >>>>>> sharpened tip?
Like Mexico...
Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
short space of time ... unlike a moron with a (semi)automatic gun
spraying bullets around.
Black swan event. Other ways of mass killing that don't involve guns.
Some think that the Islamist anti-Westerners have already won just
because they made us change the way we live, travel etc.
guns, not wearing seatbelts, electing lunatics as the President, notA lot of common sense things are alien behaviour in America: owningA few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive >>>>> >>>> to >> a different location and raped her. This happened a few >>>>> blocks >>>> away. >> What should she have done?
Same as in any modern and evolved country.
Bend over and smile?
She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night >>>>> >> in a "safe" neighborhood. He jumped into her car. Perhaps she
should >> have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
knowing how to spell the words like "colour" or "aluminium", ... :-\
The Swiss and possibly the Israelis are required to own guns.
That's not the problem. I think we USE seatbelts most of the time.
And if you mean Trump, there's a lot to be said about having a loose
cannon for a president. A little less trouble in the world during his tenure, wouldn't you say? And we've simplified spelling in order to conserve ink, space and pixels. A GOOD thing!
people. The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their
right to decent treatment. Perhaps no weapon is required if they are >>>> physically threatening. We should all be allowed to protect our own
lives. Period.
The number of people who successfully "protect their own lives" by
owning a gun is FAR FAR FAR outweighed by the number of innocent people
killed or seriuously injured by a looney with a gun.
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting
Far fewer mass shootings by loonies than one-on-one or gang squabbles.
If it weren't for the innocent bystanders, the gang squabbles might
actually be a plus.
Mainly, I think our elected officials are too stupid or venal to be
allowed to even think about changing the Constitution.
On 4/18/24 3:14 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-18 12:13, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness. >>>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim >>>>>>>> without
needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being >>>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
sharpened tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than >>>>>> other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
enforcement is too far away to be protective?
The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let >>>> violent people easy access to weapons.
Like Mexico...
Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to
drive to a different location and raped her. This happened a few
blocks away. What should she have done?
Same as in any modern and evolved country.
Bend over and smile?
She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at
night in a "safe" neighborhood. He jumped into her car. Perhaps she >>> should have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their
right to decent treatment. Perhaps no weapon is required if they are
physically threatening. We should all be allowed to protect our own
lives. Period.
So again, yes or no:
Are you advocating that every person carries a firearm on his or her
person at all times?
No. There are a lot of stupid people out there. But, with certain exceptions, we should have that right.
Apparently this is standard practice for criminals.
On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
On 4/18/24 3:46 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The Swiss and possibly the Israelis are required to own guns.
Nope. Wrong on both.
Swiss law says you *can* own a weapong (with restrictions), but you are
not "required to".
  If you are a Swiss citizen, you are generally permitted
  to own a weapon if:
    - you are at least 18 years old.
    - you are not subject to a general deputyship or are
      represented through a care appointee.
    - there is no reason to believe you may use the weapon
      to harm yourself or others.
The last point of which means you cannot use it to shoot anyone else -
so basically pointless owning a gun, unless you're something like a duck hunter.
On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
Mainly, I think our elected officials are too stupid or venal to be
allowed to even think about changing the Constitution.
As for "We should all be allowed to protect our own lives" ... even if
you actually shot someone when "protecting" yourself, you'll still find yourself in a court room having to prove that it was the only option,
and most likely come out with some form of criminal record.
On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:violent people easy access to weapons.
On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness. >>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without >>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will >>>> >>>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being >>>> >>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the >>>> >>>>>> sharpened tip?
You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.
I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people. >>>>>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law >> >>>>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
Like Mexico...
Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
With the possible exception of the cars, all of those personal 'weapons' are impossible to use to kill and injure lots of people in a short space of time ...
unlike a moron with a (semi)automatic gun spraying bullets around.
A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to >>
a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away. >> >>>> What should she have done?
Same as in any modern and evolved country.
Bend over and smile?
She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night in a
"safe" neighborhood. He jumped into her car. Perhaps she should have locked
her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
A lot of common sense things are alien behaviour in America: owning guns, not
wearing seatbelts, electing lunatics as the President, not knowing how to spell
the words like "colour" or "aluminium", ... :-\
If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their right to >> decent treatment. Perhaps no weapon is required if they are physically
threatening. We should all be allowed to protect our own lives. Period. >>
-- Cheers, Bev
   "People are too stupid to realize they are."
                             --JoHn DoH KeLm
The number of people who successfully "protect their own lives" by owning a gun
is FAR FAR FAR outweighed by the number of innocent people killed or seriuously
injured by a looney with a gun.
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people. The
country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
Tamborino, 2024-04-01 02:55:
This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's
update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
RCS *is* end-to-end encrypted. But this is not mandatory, so using unencrypted connections is possible. But the Google messaging app in
Android will show you if the recipient has RCS and also if the
connection is encrypted.
Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end encryption >> is now enabled on your Android phone by default.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/
So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android
users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of security.
But this is not the fault of RCS.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL! >>>>>>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?
No he didn't. Maybe you should be rape hoaxed.
You're getting incoherent. Are the drugs wearing off?
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'dBecause bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no >>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men. >>>>
No one needs vigilantes.
Self-defense is not vigilantism.
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil >>>>>>>>>>>>> case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most
civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted
one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL! >>>>>>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'dBecause bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no >>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men. >>>>
When everyone is carrying a gun
But not everyone carries a gun.
The simple fact is:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
Deal with it.
Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
gun?
And why the focus on the "developed world"?
Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth, social development, etc.
Mexico has fierce gun lawsAnd there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
and a much higher murder rate.
On 2024-04-15 22:09, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-13 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil >>>>>>>>>>>>> case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most
civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted
one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL! >>>>>>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
charged?
Not yet. Here's hoping...
The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
actual justice.
In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation aren't just
anything.
If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be >>>>>>>>>>> prosecuted.
Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
Why? Civil law is just as important.
Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that >>>>>>>> in the criminal system.
Still evidence of wrongdoing.
Why should it be any different for Trump?
Nobody is saying it should be.
That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and shouldn't face
trial. The courts should decide.
Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it
wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred >>>>>>>>>>>>> he'd just
be pretty street criminal.
Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
All politically-motivated persecutions.
Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of
their
own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution". >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrites the
lot of them.
How people for that, I don't know.
I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have >>>>>>>>>>>> politically-
motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The right were
desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as Trump. Again,
it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not how
fair
society works.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe >>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Also, Bragg hasn't told us what underlying felony Trump allegedly committed.
Sure he has.
No he hasn't.
It is literally in the indictments.
<https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment> >>>>>
I'll give you one example:
'THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the
defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE ,
in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in
the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with
intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal >>>>> the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business >>>>> records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated >>>>> February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable >>>>> Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.'
That's a FELONY, doofus.
There are 33 more listed there.
Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an UNDERLYING >>>> felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
You don't understand the law.
There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification was
undertaken in furtherance of.
Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
Federal election contribution crimes.
On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil >>>>>>>>>>>>> case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most
civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted
one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL! >>>>>>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
"Some slut"? As in, ONE person?
Found this for you:
'Weinstein has sexually assaulted at least three women. He was convicted in 2020
of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and sexually assaulting Miriam Haley,[3]
a production assistant.[38] In 2022, he was convicted of raping and sexually assaulting an unnamed woman[4] who later revealed herself to be Evgeniya Chernyshova, a model and actor living in Italy.[39]'
Now let's look at the specific cases.
'He was convicted in 2020 of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and sexually
assaulting Miriam Haley':
'The jury found Mr. Weinstein, 67, guilty of raping an aspiring actress, Jessica
Mann, at a Midtown hotel in 2013, and forcibly performing oral sex on a production assistant, Miriam Haley, in his Lower Manhattan apartment in 2006.'
'In 2022, he was convicted of raping and sexually assaulting an unnamed woman[4]
who later revealed herself to be Evgeniya Chernyshova, a model and actor living
in Italy.[39]'
'Jurors in December convicted Weinstein of one count of rape and two counts of
sexual assault against the woman who at the trial’s opening in October gave a
dramatic and emotional account of him arriving uninvited at her hotel room during a 2013 film festival in the run-up to the Oscars, talking his way in and
assaulting her during a film festival.'
So yes; some years had passed, but not the statute of limitations, right?
And this is three separate women, testifying under oath about three separate incidents.
And those are just the convictions.
'Women who have accused Weinstein of rape include:
Lysette Anthony told British police in October 2017 that Weinstein raped her in
the late 1980s at her home in London.[119]
Asia Argento told The New Yorker that in 1997, Weinstein invited her into a hotel room, "pulled her skirt up, forced her legs apart, and performed oral sex
on her as she repeatedly told him to stop".[29]
Wedil David, an actress, said that in 2016, Harvey Weinstein raped her in a Beverly Hills hotel room.[55]
Paz de la Huerta said Weinstein had raped her on two separate occasions in November and December 2010.[56]
Lucia Evans said, after a business meeting in 2004, Weinstein forced her to perform oral sex on him.[29]
Hope Exiner d'Amore, a former employee of Weinstein, said he raped her during a
business trip to New York in the late 1970s.[48]
Miriam "Mimi" Haleyi, a production crew member, said Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in his New York City apartment in 2006 when she was in
her twenties.[120]
Dominique Huett said Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her and then carried out another sexual act in front of her.[121]
Natassia Malthe said in 2008, Weinstein barged into her London hotel room at night and raped her.[88][122]
Rose McGowan wrote on Twitter that she told the Amazon Studios head Roy Price
that Weinstein had raped her, but Price ignored this and continued collaborating
with Weinstein.[123] Price later resigned from his post following sexual harassment allegations against him.[124]
Annabella Sciorra said that, in the early 1990s, Weinstein forced himself into
her apartment, shoved her onto her bed and raped her.[72][125]
Melissa Thompson, a tech entrepreneur, told Sky News Weinstein raped her in his
hotel room following a business meeting in 2011.[126][127][128]
Wende Walsh, model and aspiring actress said that when she was working as a waitress at an Elmwood Avenue bar in the late 1970s, Weinstein begged her for a
ride and then once inside the car, he sexually assaulted her.[84][116]
An unnamed woman told The New Yorker that Weinstein invited her into a hotel room on a pretext, and "forced himself on [her] sexually" despite her protests.[29]
An anonymous woman who works in the film industry says in a civil claim she filed in the U.K. in November 2017 that he sexually assaulted her several times
sometime after 2000.[84]
An unnamed Canadian actress says he sexually assaulted her in 2000. She filed
suit against him in 2017.[84]
An unnamed actress sued Weinstein for sexual battery and assault, alleging that
in 2016 he forced her into sex.[129]'
That's 17 more women alleging rape.
And that is JUST the rape allegations
'Women who said they had been sexually harassed or assaulted by Weinstein include:
In all, 127 women have have made the accusations, asshole.
On 2024-04-19 08:38, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
On 4/18/24 3:46 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
...
The Swiss and possibly the Israelis are required to own guns.
Nope. Wrong on both.
Swiss law says you *can* own a weapong (with restrictions), but you are
not "required to".
If you are a Swiss citizen, you are generally permitted
to own a weapon if:
- you are at least 18 years old.
- you are not subject to a general deputyship or are
represented through a care appointee.
- there is no reason to believe you may use the weapon
to harm yourself or others.
The last point of which means you cannot use it to shoot anyone else -
so basically pointless owning a gun, unless you're something like a
duck hunter.
The purpose being to defend the country from foreign invaders, not
yourself from somebody invading your private property, or from any sort
of criminal.
And they get trained.
...
Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an
UNDERLYING
felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
You don't understand the law.
There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification was
undertaken in furtherance of.
Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
Federal election contribution crimes.
And Bragg has no authority to prosecute that. He's pulling shit out
of his ass.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customer or business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conviction.
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil case is a
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done >>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally >>>>>>>>>> wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually >>>>>>>>>> assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, >>>>>>>> especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated >>>>>>>> well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the
truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein? >>>
AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds
like you'd
prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and >>>>>>>>>>> proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to >>>>>>>>>>> anyone or
anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable
men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society
there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to >>>>>> be men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society. >>>>>
When everyone is carrying a gun
But not everyone carries a gun.
The simple fact is:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
Deal with it.
Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
gun?
And why the focus on the "developed world"?
Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth,
social development, etc.
Mexico has fierce gun lawsAnd there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
and a much higher murder rate.
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARSGo read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein? >>>
AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
"Some slut"? As in, ONE person?
Found this for you:
'Weinstein has sexually assaulted at least three women. He was
convicted in 2020 of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and sexually
assaulting Miriam Haley,[3] a production assistant.[38] In 2022, he
was convicted of raping and sexually assaulting an unnamed woman[4]
who later revealed herself to be Evgeniya Chernyshova, a model and
actor living in Italy.[39]'
Now let's look at the specific cases.
'He was convicted in 2020 of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and
sexually assaulting Miriam Haley':
'The jury found Mr. Weinstein, 67, guilty of raping an aspiring
actress, Jessica Mann, at a Midtown hotel in 2013, and forcibly
performing oral sex on a production assistant, Miriam Haley, in his
Lower Manhattan apartment in 2006.'
Jessica Mann claims he "raped" her in 2013, but continued to have
sex with him until 2017!
Must have been "horrible" for her!
'In 2022, he was convicted of raping and sexually assaulting an
unnamed woman[4] who later revealed herself to be Evgeniya
Chernyshova, a model and actor living in Italy.[39]'
'Jurors in December convicted Weinstein of one count of rape and two
counts of sexual assault against the woman who at the trial’s opening
in October gave a dramatic and emotional account of him arriving
uninvited at her hotel room during a 2013 film festival in the run-up
to the Oscars, talking his way in and assaulting her during a film
festival.'
So yes; some years had passed, but not the statute of limitations, right?
And this is three separate women, testifying under oath about three
separate incidents.
And those are just the convictions.
'Women who have accused Weinstein of rape include:
Lysette Anthony told British police in October 2017 that Weinstein
raped her in the late 1980s at her home in London.[119]
Asia Argento told The New Yorker that in 1997, Weinstein invited her
into a hotel room, "pulled her skirt up, forced her legs apart, and
performed oral sex on her as she repeatedly told him to stop".[29]
Wedil David, an actress, said that in 2016, Harvey Weinstein raped her
in a Beverly Hills hotel room.[55]
Paz de la Huerta said Weinstein had raped her on two separate
occasions in November and December 2010.[56]
Lucia Evans said, after a business meeting in 2004, Weinstein forced
her to perform oral sex on him.[29]
Hope Exiner d'Amore, a former employee of Weinstein, said he raped her
during a business trip to New York in the late 1970s.[48]
Miriam "Mimi" Haleyi, a production crew member, said Weinstein
forcibly performed oral sex on her in his New York City apartment in
2006 when she was in her twenties.[120]
Dominique Huett said Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her and
then carried out another sexual act in front of her.[121]
Natassia Malthe said in 2008, Weinstein barged into her London hotel
room at night and raped her.[88][122]
Rose McGowan wrote on Twitter that she told the Amazon Studios head
Roy Price that Weinstein had raped her, but Price ignored this and
continued collaborating with Weinstein.[123] Price later resigned from
his post following sexual harassment allegations against him.[124]
Annabella Sciorra said that, in the early 1990s, Weinstein forced
himself into her apartment, shoved her onto her bed and raped
her.[72][125]
Melissa Thompson, a tech entrepreneur, told Sky News Weinstein raped
her in his hotel room following a business meeting in
2011.[126][127][128]
Wende Walsh, model and aspiring actress said that when she was working
as a waitress at an Elmwood Avenue bar in the late 1970s, Weinstein
begged her for a ride and then once inside the car, he sexually
assaulted her.[84][116]
An unnamed woman told The New Yorker that Weinstein invited her into a
hotel room on a pretext, and "forced himself on [her] sexually"
despite her protests.[29]
An anonymous woman who works in the film industry says in a civil
claim she filed in the U.K. in November 2017 that he sexually
assaulted her several times sometime after 2000.[84]
An unnamed Canadian actress says he sexually assaulted her in 2000.
She filed suit against him in 2017.[84]
An unnamed actress sued Weinstein for sexual battery and assault,
alleging that in 2016 he forced her into sex.[129]'
That's 17 more women alleging rape.
And that is JUST the rape allegations
'Women who said they had been sexually harassed or assaulted by
Weinstein include:
Merely looking at a woman the "wrong" way gets defined as "sexual harassment".
(Flushed)
In all, 127 women have have made the accusations, asshole.
I hope you get rape hoaxed.
Much snipped...
On 4/18/24 11:38 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
Mainly, I think our elected officials are too stupid or venal to be
allowed to even think about changing the Constitution.
Actually, this is the main thing.
I stand corrected about the gun-owning requirement. Perhaps there was
an earlier Swiss law or perhaps I waa ill-informed.
As for "We should all be allowed to protect our own lives" ... even if
you actually shot someone when "protecting" yourself, you'll still find
yourself in a court room having to prove that it was the only option,
and most likely come out with some form of criminal record.
I think that would depend on what a "reasonable person" would deem a
threat. A guy with a knife who outweighed me by 100 pounds would
probably be considered a threat and I wouldn't be hauled into court. A skinny teen with a knife and I'd probably still be OK. I'm amazed at
how much stronger a man is than a same-size woman.
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting
people. The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
Are these kids suburban whites?
On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to
do to survive.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
No one needs vigilantes.
Self-defense is not vigilantism.
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
Yes it is.
Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm.
On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to
do to survive.
Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball shoes?
On 2024-04-19 20:25, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to
do to survive.
Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball shoes?
You really ARE a racist, aren't you?
On 4/19/24 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 20:25, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to >>>> do to survive.
Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball shoes?
You really ARE a racist, aren't you?
End of "discussion".
On 2024-04-19 17:03:19 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
On 2024-04-19 08:38, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
On 4/18/24 3:46 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
...
The Swiss and possibly the Israelis are required to own guns.
Nope. Wrong on both.
Swiss law says you *can* own a weapong (with restrictions), but you
are not "required to".
  If you are a Swiss citizen, you are generally permitted
  to own a weapon if:
    - you are at least 18 years old.
    - you are not subject to a general deputyship or are
      represented through a care appointee.
    - there is no reason to believe you may use the weapon
      to harm yourself or others.
The last point of which means you cannot use it to shoot anyone else
- so basically pointless owning a gun, unless you're something like a
duck hunter.
The purpose being to defend the country from foreign invaders, not
yourself from somebody invading your private property, or from any
sort of criminal.
And they get trained.
...
The wording of the law does not distinguish any such thing.
On 2024-04-19 22:19, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/19/24 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 20:25, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to >>>>> do to survive.
Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball shoes?
You really ARE a racist, aren't you?
End of "discussion".
Coward.
On 4/19/24 11:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 22:19, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/19/24 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 20:25, The Real Bev wrote:
On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they
need to
do to survive.
Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball shoes?
You really ARE a racist, aren't you?
End of "discussion".
Coward.
'Racist' is the modern version of 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' and signals the end
of the discussion. Surely you remember this convention...
With the possible exception of the cars, all of those personal
'weapons' are impossible to use to kill and injure lots of people in a
short space of time ... unlike a moron with a (semi)automatic gun
spraying bullets around.
Black swan event. Other ways of mass killing that don't involve guns.
Some think that the Islamist anti-Westerners have already won just
because they made us change the way we live, travel etc.
On 2024-04-19 14:04, Anonymous wrote:
Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an UNDERLYING
felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
You don't understand the law.
There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification was >>>>> undertaken in furtherance of.
Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
Federal election contribution crimes.
And Bragg has no authority to prosecute that. He's pulling shit out
of his ass.
He doesn't need authority to prosecute those crimes.
The statute simply requires that there ARE crimes that the falsifications of business records were intended to cover up.
You agree that Trump did falsify the records, right?
:-)
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business
partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?
No he didn't. Maybe you should be rape hoaxed.
You're getting incoherent. Are the drugs wearing off?
No one needs vigilantes.Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no >>>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society. >>>>>
Self-defense is not vigilantism.
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
Yes it is.
Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm.
On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most
civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
case is a
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something
wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually >>>>>>>>>>> assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein? >>>>
AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or >>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no >>>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society. >>>>>>
When everyone is carrying a gun
But not everyone carries a gun.
The simple fact is:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
Deal with it.
Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
gun?
And why the focus on the "developed world"?
Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth, social >>> development, etc.
Mexico has fierce gun lawsAnd there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
and a much higher murder rate.
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to do to
survive.
On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people.
The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
Are these kids suburban whites?
Watch the racist speak!
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:04, Anonymous wrote:
Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an
UNDERLYING
felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
You don't understand the law.
There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification
was undertaken in furtherance of.
Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
Federal election contribution crimes.
And Bragg has no authority to prosecute that. He's pulling shit out
of his ass.
He doesn't need authority to prosecute those crimes.
The statute simply requires that there ARE crimes that the
falsifications of business records were intended to cover up.
You agree that Trump did falsify the records, right?
:-)
Those are misdemeanors. Bragg suggested four _possibilities_ of underlying
crimes to turn them into felonies, meaning he was an ape flinging shit at
the wall trying to see what would stick. Now he is claiming campaign
finance crimes, but that "underlying crime" didn't occur until AFTER Trump won, in 2017, and the payments reimbursing his lawyer's payments are only illegal if construed as a campaign contribution. But if they were illegal campaign contributions, as opposed to personal expenditures, why didn't the Justice Department prosecute Trump for that?
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need
to do to survive.
Poverty is the natural state of man. There are plenty of poor civilized people,
and I don't see them turning their neighborhoods into crime-ridden ghettos.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Java Jive wrote:The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong.
Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customer or business
partner.
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
clear case of doing something wrong.
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
Not morally.
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS. >>>>>>>>>>>
What the fuck does that mean?
then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
Spoken like a true misogynist.
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?
No he didn't. Maybe you should be rape hoaxed.
You're getting incoherent. Are the drugs wearing off?
No one needs vigilantes.Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
prefer the wild west.
There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society. >>>>>>
Self-defense is not vigilantism.
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
Yes it is.
Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm.
Those in the United States who lawfully carry a concealed handgun
hope they never need to use it, but want to be prepared for that
eventuality.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting
people. The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
Are these kids suburban whites?
Watch the racist speak!
Noticing is "racist". LOL!
HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
Alan wrote:[...]
On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
Alan wrote:
Mexico has fierce gun lawsAnd there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
and a much higher murder rate.
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to do to
survive.
Poverty is the natural state of man. There are plenty of poor civilized people,
and I don't see them turning their neighborhoods into crime-ridden ghettos.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people.
The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
Are these kids suburban whites?
Watch the racist speak!
Noticing is "racist". LOL!
HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Chris wrote:
No one needs vigilantes.There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
anything.
Countless, really? Examples.
Notable you didn't answer this.
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society. >>>>>>>
Self-defense is not vigilantism.
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
Yes it is.
Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm. >>>
Those in the United States who lawfully carry a concealed handgun
hope they never need to use it, but want to be prepared for that
eventuality.
Why? I've been to the US. It isn't as lawless you make out.
As a visitor I'm more worried about getting caught in cross-fire than actually being a victim of crime.
On 2024-04-19 14:04, Anonymous wrote:
Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARSGo read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein? >>>>
AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
"Some slut"? As in, ONE person?
Found this for you:
'Weinstein has sexually assaulted at least three women. He was convicted in
2020 of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and sexually assaulting Miriam
Haley,[3] a production assistant.[38] In 2022, he was convicted of raping and
sexually assaulting an unnamed woman[4] who later revealed herself to be >>> Evgeniya Chernyshova, a model and actor living in Italy.[39]'
Now let's look at the specific cases.
'He was convicted in 2020 of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and
sexually assaulting Miriam Haley':
'The jury found Mr. Weinstein, 67, guilty of raping an aspiring actress, >>> Jessica Mann, at a Midtown hotel in 2013, and forcibly performing oral sex on
a production assistant, Miriam Haley, in his Lower Manhattan apartment in 2006.'
Jessica Mann claims he "raped" her in 2013, but continued to have
sex with him until 2017!
Must have been "horrible" for her!
Your source for that is...?
Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people.
The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
Are these kids suburban whites?
Watch the racist speak!
Noticing is "racist". LOL!
Yes.
HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
No, it doesn't. What matters is that people force others to live in conditions they would not accept for themself. Unfortunately those in
power in the US are often white and the others not. But this does not
mean, that black people are "naturally" different.
Arno Welzel wrote:
Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by
shooting people.
The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
Are these kids suburban whites?
Watch the racist speak!
Noticing is "racist". LOL!
Yes.
HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
No, it doesn't. What matters is that people force others to live in
conditions they would not accept for themself. Unfortunately those in
power in the US are often white and the others not. But this does not
mean, that black people are "naturally" different.
"Housing discrimination" has been illegal in the United States for over
fifty years now. There is no forcing blacks to live in the conditions
they live in. It's not our fault that they shit in their nests.
Race matters.
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Arno Welzel wrote:
Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people.
The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
Are these kids suburban whites?
Watch the racist speak!
Noticing is "racist". LOL!
Yes.
HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
No, it doesn't. What matters is that people force others to live in
conditions they would not accept for themself. Unfortunately those in
power in the US are often white and the others not. But this does not
mean, that black people are "naturally" different.
"Housing discrimination" has been illegal in the United States for over
fifty years now.
Just like gender discrimination. It still happens all over the place.
There is no forcing blacks to live in the conditions
they live in.
Discrimination is not the same as "forcing".
It's not our fault that they shit in their nests.
Race matters.
To racists.
Chris wrote:
Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
Arno Welzel wrote:
Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by
shooting people.
The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
Are these kids suburban whites?
Watch the racist speak!
Noticing is "racist". LOL!
Yes.
HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
No, it doesn't. What matters is that people force others to live in
conditions they would not accept for themself. Unfortunately those in
power in the US are often white and the others not. But this does not
mean, that black people are "naturally" different.
"Housing discrimination" has been illegal in the United States for over
fifty years now.
Just like gender discrimination. It still happens all over the place.
ALL companies with HR departments BEND OVER BACKWARDS to hire wahmen.
There is no forcing blacks to live in the conditions
they live in.
Discrimination is not the same as "forcing".
You might as well accuse White men of witchcraft.
It's not our fault that they shit in their nests.
Race matters.
To racists.
Reality is "racist".
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 915 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 28:09:15 |
| Calls: | 12,169 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,521 |
| Messages: | 2,234,138 |
