Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

external image

US political crisis

The "not fair" guess was not all that serious.
I would probably have guessed "smile" which still would have been wrong i guess. :cheerleader:

Honestly couldnt even remember she had made a song named "fuck you", but after listening to it i do remember hearing it before.
I dont listen to Lily much.
 
Kroffe said:
The "not fair" guess was not all that serious.
I would probably have guessed "smile" which still would have been wrong i guess. :cheerleader:

Honestly couldnt even remember she had made a song named "fuck you", but after listening to it i do remember hearing it before.
I dont listen to Lily much.
Click to expand...
Meh. Too much content only suggests excuses for being WRONG again.
My work is done for the evening :D
 
geordiecolin said:
You even got your wording wrong. Twice in half an hour suggests that you are just deluded! :laugh:
Click to expand...
Since i never make mistakes i obviously intended to spell it that way.
So the one making a mistake was you, mistakenly thinking i made a mistake. ;)

dddd.gif
 
sufferinsilence said:
Even if you wouldn't know Trump or anything about the US election and you hear a call with a guy saying: "hey, find me 12.000 votes so I can win", you don't think that's damning enough? :laugh:
Click to expand...
Some would think it damning for sure, but not me, I'm more in the camp of what's this all about and would look into it further before making a snap judgement.
 
slotplayer said:
Some would think it damning for sure, but not me, I'm more in the camp of what's this all about and would look into it further before making a snap judgement.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you got a point. What the actual fuck is it all about that the president of a country is calling a governor of one of the states asking him to find him 12k votes somewhere?! :laugh:
 
sufferinsilence said:
Yeah, you got a point. What the actual fuck is it all about that the president of a country is calling a governor of one of the states asking him to find him 12k votes somewhere?! :laugh:
Click to expand...
He called the Secretary of State, I think he's in charge of the elections so he would be the one to call. You should really listen to the first 6 minutes of the call when Trump goes through what he believes were illegal ballots.
 
However else Trump could have phrased it, it all boils down to the same thing, a belief or strong conviction that Georgia under raffensperger had counted fraudulent biden votes that could have been binned through signature matching or other auditing.

The greater number found the more embarrasing it would be for the republicans incl raffensperger in control there, hence find me 12,000 -out of the many thousands that got through is the context- which would be less embarrassing as it is of a smaller scale, you need to understand the background context of a phone call to interpret the meaning.

The literal meaning implied by the media is stupid, no president is going to phone up a state secretary and ask him to break the law so that he can win the election, it's obvious the phone conversation would be recorded, probably from both ends.

Trump probably should have had something written for him beforehand by a legally qualified pro, and then stuck to that script, you'd think he would have learnt after the covid health advice saga. [or ukraine phone call]
 
slotplayer said:
He called the Secretary of State, I think he's in charge of the elections so he would be the one to call. You should really listen to the first 6 minutes of the call when Trump goes through what he believes were illegal ballots.
Click to expand...

Yet his lawyers never made a proper case about it even tho they had all this so called evidence. Makes you think.
 
mack341 said:
The literal meaning implied by the media is stupid, no president is going to phone up a state secretary and ask him to break the law so that he can win the election, it's obvious the phone conversation would be recorded, probably from both ends.
Click to expand...
I would never suspect the man who suggested to inject bleach, and later went on to declare himself the winner before the votes were counted to do something stupid.
Sounds so out of character for him.
;)
 
No matter what people think his intentions with the call was, the way it was made was imo not ok.
Full of thinly veiled threats, mixed with pandering, begging,outright lies about so called evidence he had, lies about dominion etc etc

If he had a shred of the evidence he says he has in the call, he would actually have won the election.
Imo since he didnt have any evidence, he resorted to trying to push Raffensperger to 'find' the votes instead.
 
The way that call was made was like handing a big stick to his numerous enemies to beat him with!

As far as I understand all the votes are sealed once counted, they are the primary evidence, then cross referencing trails and signature audits, along with statistical analysis and surveys would be needed to locate any dodgy votes.

It's not possible if the power and apparatus of Govt wants you out and won't lend a hand to investigate.

The fact Trump won over another 11 million voters from 2016 was a big vote of confidence and a statistical/cultural/political anamoly that has never happened before to a losing president. [incl more votes from the ethnic sections of society he was supposedly unpopular with]

I think it would be very hard in fact to find another election in any major country where a sitting president/prime minister increases their vote by that percent [17%] and yet loses, this must be the first time ever I'd be prepared to wager.

Exceptional events should be looked into just in case all is not what it seems.
 
Nature and food.
The name of the channel also is nice. =)




Edit: Got a bit curious.

"The term "bangers" is attributed (in common usage in the UK) to the fact that sausages made during World War I, when there were meat shortages, were made with such a high water content that they were more liable to pop under high heat when cooked.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
!"
 
Last edited:
Kroffe said:
I mean, i guess thats true, but is her defense really going to be "it was so obvious i was just talking shit i dont think i should be sued for it"

View attachment 152569
Click to expand...

Moreover there's hundreds, if not thousands, of people that might go to jail over what these clowns have caused: the attack on the Capitol on Jan 6.
 
sufferinsilence said:


Release the Kraken... oh wait.
Click to expand...

Only that is simply not true and the media that you get your information from know it and share it because they know the gullible will not do their homework.
She simply has not said she made it up or tried to deceive. If you actually read what it says it is just part of legal argument. Read page 27/top of 28.

From yahoo provided to them by Huff post

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


The full doc
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Kroffe said:
That should be going down naturally now when he no longer can brainwash his cult via twitter .right?
;)

Even tho its a pretty funny made up thing, its not exactly something original.
Were probably versions used before Bush aswell.

Click to expand...

Except there is talk of him setting up his own site that will rival Twitter etc. That will create panic
 
geordiecolin said:
Except there is talk of him setting up his own site that will rival Twitter etc. That will create panic
Click to expand...
Im not so sure why it would?

Regarding the above, shes linking the full doc in the tweet.
Part of her defense is literally "no reasonable person would conclude the statements were truly statements of fact"

So what part of the tweet is not true?
Even if its only a part of her defense, a part of her defense is more or less "only idiots would believe this"
Its not the whole defense, which would be somewhat hard to fit in a tweet, but i dont see anything about her tweet that is not true.


1616476835481.png
 
Last edited:
What you bring up is even brought up in the same tweet-chain or whatever its called.
"i cant be blamed for saying what i said" and also "i still believe what i said"
=)

Seems like a wonky defense saying "no reasonable person would believe the statements ive made" only to go on to say "i still believe the statements i made"

Ok then.
Maybe its a sound legal argument, but it sounds weird.
I dont think she is going to get away with pretending her saying on tv there WAS fraud, and dominion HAS ties etc etc was just legal theories and opinions.
Because they were not presented as such.

 
Last edited:
Political memes could use its own thread.
Im sure Biden will supply alot of material over the next 4 years.
Tho i guess he will only be fit/coherent enough to be the president for another 1-2 years or months

Also, #Stairforceone is a great hashtag. :laugh:




nnn.jpg
 
Kroffe said:
Im not so sure why it would?

Regarding the above, shes linking the full doc in the tweet.
Part of her defense is literally "no reasonable person would conclude the statements were truly statements of fact"

So what part of the tweet is not true?
Even if its only a part of her defense, a part of her defense is more or less "only idiots would believe this"
Its not the whole defense, which would be somewhat hard to fit in a tweet, but i dont see anything about her tweet that is not true.


View attachment 152573
Click to expand...
It is deceptive because it is a legal argument and statement designed to further her case and not an admission of guilt.Legal maneuvering.

She is trying to get Dominion to demand discovery in order her her to access the information that she requires in return?

"Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process."

"Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based," the document noted.

I would not make assumptions on her credibility just yet. Not until the case is concluded. Its too early to called her Backtrackin Kracken unless she states it publicly.
 
Last edited:
geordiecolin said:
It is deceptive because it is a legal argument and statement designed to further her case and not an admission of guilt.Legal maneuvering. Maybe she is trying to get Dominion to demand discovery in order her her to access the information that she requires in return?

"Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process."

"Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based," the document noted.

I would not make assumptions on her credibility just yet. Not until the case is concluded. Its too early to called her Backtrackin Kracken unless she states it publicly.
Click to expand...
Will that be public record later?
Would be interesting to see what she based her statements on.
Because she went pretty hard at it, hard enough to scare away Giuliani and the rest of the team.

Imo if she is to have any chance in the case, she will have to provide some solid proof to explain why she made the statements that she did.

Edit: But if she had something like that, would she really be in the position she is in now?
 
Kroffe said:
Will that be public record later?
Would be interesting to see what she based her statements on.
Because she went pretty hard at it, hard enough to scare away Giuliani and the rest of the team.

Imo if she is to have any chance in the case, she will have to provide some solid proof to explain why she made the statements that she did.

Edit: But if she had something like that, would she really be in the position she is in now?
Click to expand...
Why would she set out her case in the doc if she was holding her hands up to lying about her case? Those she is accusing would win the case and she would be utterly ruined in so many ways. Probably even jailed.

The atterney generals in all key states allowed changes to the voting process which where unconstitutional as far as the argument goes. She has not been allowed access to various evidence and these I suspect is what she is trying to gain access too. Without being able too I suspect she is fecked.

I just think that there is top flight legal stuff going on and I am no legal wiz
 
Cant claim to really have looked into his border policy.

If i had to guess id say probably not.
Biden is too right leaning for me on most policies.
Ill look at it, but not right now (if anyone else is curious
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
)

Bernie is probably the only politician i would consider voting for.
Hes always been fighting for the same things, and most of them seem to be focused on making life better for the lower/middle class.
Socialized healtcare, raising minimum wage, tax the rix etc.

Easily the most consistent politican in Usa at the moment, possibly forever, and the kind that would be needed to bring on any meaningful change.
Shame he never got a shot at the Presidency, and now hes too old imo.
Wasted opportunity.

Sidenote: They really need to put term-limits into place imo-
Not healthy to have the same people cling to power for too long, no matter what side they are on the politial spectrum.
Even if they had ideals when starting out, after x years of being lobbied by corporations, theres probably not much left of it.

Stealing Macks quote, but he also stole it, so its ok.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
 
Like i said, i dont agree with Biden on most of his policies.
And video above shows why.

If you think about it, these "radical ideas" that Bernie are suggesting, like a form of socialized healthcare, a minimum wage people can actually live on without having to have 3 jobs etc etc are all just things that alot of non third world countries already have, and have had for a long time. So its not some new experimental thing.
But in Usa its being portrayed as communism, so obviously people wont go for it.
Usa is supposedly the richest country in the world, i bet if we remove the top 1% from every country, it would be among the poorest.
There is more than enough money to go around in Usa, its all just being concentrated at a tiny tiny part of the population.

David Cross does a good job explaning why the current system is not great.
Beware, clickbait video title.

 
Last edited:
Kroffe said:
Like i said, i dont agree with Biden on most of his policies.
And video above shows why.

If you think about it, these "radical ideas" that Bernie are suggesting, like a form of socialized healthcare, a minimum wage people can actually live on without having to have 3 jobs etc etc are all just things that alot of non third world countries already have, and have had for a long time. So its not some new experimental thing.
But in Usa its being portrayed as communism, so obviously people wont go for it.
Usa is supposedly the richest country in the world, i bet if we remove the top 1% from every country, it would be among the poorest.
There is more than enough money to go around in Usa, its all just being concentrated at a tiny tiny part of the population.

David Cross does a good job explaning why the current system is not great.
Title is a bit clickbait.

Click to expand...


"Not great" :laugh:
 
sufferinsilence said:
"Not great" :laugh:
Click to expand...
Might have been the understatement of the year.
=)

I mean theres clearly enough money to get stuff done, but imo its being spent wrong.

Ive seen people complaning about the "idiotic" mars rover.
Omg 2.5 billion, that could have been used to help people here instead waah..

Meanwhile, the 721 billion military budget (for 2020 alone):
yyyy.gif


But yeah, keep being angry at the dumb space people for wasting your money.
Forget about the rich not paying taxes, corporations avoiding taxes etc etc.
Blame the guy who wants to increase minimum wage instead, after all being poor is just the first chapter of the American dream, im sure you will soon reach the being rich part of it.


“John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”​

 
Last edited:
Kroffe said:
Like i said, i dont agree with Biden on most of his policies.
And video above shows why.

If you think about it, these "radical ideas" that Bernie are suggesting, like a form of socialized healthcare, a minimum wage people can actually live on without having to have 3 jobs etc etc are all just things that alot of non third world countries already have, and have had for a long time. So its not some new experimental thing.
But in Usa its being portrayed as communism, so obviously people wont go for it.
Usa is supposedly the richest country in the world, i bet if we remove the top 1% from every country, it would be among the poorest.
There is more than enough money to go around in Usa, its all just being concentrated at a tiny tiny part of the population.

David Cross does a good job explaning why the current system is not great.
Title is a bit clickbait.

Click to expand...


yes, it would be pretty hard to sell wealth redistribution to the population here.
 
slotplayer said:
yes, it would be pretty hard to sell wealth redistribution to the population here.
Click to expand...
Just making the rich & corporations actually pay taxes would go a long way.
Too many loopholes currently.
But it would mean an almost complete remake of the current tax system, and with all the money politicians are getting from corporations its hard to see something like that ever happening.

Saw an article about Zoom, which made a great deal of money last year, alot thanks to the lockdowns/pandemic.
Money back to the people? Nope, stock options to executives.
And its not like they are doing anything illegal, they are just using the system to their advantage.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


"But the company paid $0 in federal income taxes on those profits, it disclosed Friday in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, even though the corporate tax rate was 21% for 2020. A Zoom spokesperson told Insider in a statement the company "complies with all applicable tax laws" in countries where it does business and that it "has invested heavily in research and development activities to build and enhance its communications technology - development activity that is specifically encouraged under current law."

"But research and development credits accounted for just 1% of Zoom's tax bill reductions, while around 99% of its savings were a result of paying executives $302.4 million in stock-based compensation, compared to $32.1 million the year before."


The below image is just a joke, but i dont think it would be such a bad thing knowing who owns the politicians.


jjhgg.jpg
 
Last edited:
Makes me laugh though that it was the US and international corporations that helped china build up it's wealth, reach and power in the first place by relocating all their production plants there. China wants to dominate it's region, but you never know they might have long term global aspirations as well to become the numero uno power.

What's the US going to do, or whether it will be able to function well, when the population is nearly 400 million. The gated communities and private security will come in handy then.

I thought the 80's were a bit worry inducing with the fear a nuclear war could kick off at any minute, but we are now enterering uncharted waters with these new tensions and power struggles, also with declining world resources yet an increasing population. [An extra 83 million people per year currently]

I always wanted to be around to see the exciting future but I'm not so sure that will be as enjoyable or better as I once thought.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top