Current events discussion

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Dude, where's my nuke? This is some wtf level 9000. I don't know how else to say it:

"Ferguson's theory was also shared with X user JerseyFutures (account now deleted), a self-proclaimed RF engineer, who speculated, "What you're seeing is American-made HPGe nuclear detector drones..." "

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

""I spoke to a gentleman a few months ago, who was trying to raise the alarm to the highest levels of our government ... about this one particular nuclear warhead that he physically put his hands on ... that was left over from Ukraine ... and he knew this thing was headed towards the United States," Saxon Aerospace's John Ferguson stated in the video.

He continued: "Everyone knows that this administration is pushing to get into war with Russia.""

@Eggs

That's literally the plot or very close to it of Tom Clancy's the sum of all fears movie/book.

"The Sum of All Fears is a political thrillernovel, written by Tom Clancy and released on August 14, 1991, as the sequel to Clear and Present Danger (1989). Main character Jack Ryan, who is now the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, tries to stop a crisis concerning the Middle East peace process wherein Palestinian and former East German terrorists conspire to bring the United States and Soviet Union into nuclear war. It debuted at number one on the New York Timesbestseller list.[1]"

The Sum of All Fears - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Dude, where's my nuke? This is some wtf level 9000. I don't know how else to say it:

"Ferguson's theory was also shared with X user JerseyFutures (account now deleted), a self-proclaimed RF engineer, who speculated, "What you're seeing is American-made HPGe nuclear detector drones..." "

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

""I spoke to a gentleman a few months ago, who was trying to raise the alarm to the highest levels of our government ... about this one particular nuclear warhead that he physically put his hands on ... that was left over from Ukraine ... and he knew this thing was headed towards the United States," Saxon Aerospace's John Ferguson stated in the video.

He continued: "Everyone knows that this administration is pushing to get into war with Russia.""

@Eggs

That's literally the plot or very close to it of Tom Clancy's the sum of all fears movie/book.

"The Sum of All Fears is a political thrillernovel, written by Tom Clancy and released on August 14, 1991, as the sequel to Clear and Present Danger (1989). Main character Jack Ryan, who is now the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, tries to stop a crisis concerning the Middle East peace process wherein Palestinian and former East German terrorists conspire to bring the United States and Soviet Union into nuclear war. It debuted at number one on the New York Timesbestseller list.[1]"

The Sum of All Fears - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

NJ senator says feds are too ‘fearful’ of public reaction to tell the truth about mysterious drones

A New Jersey State Sen. has claimed the federal government has not shared information about the elusive drones over the Garden State because they are “fearful” of how the public would r…

nypost.com

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Point out to me where, in this quote form the hearing DECISION, you see "****** abuse".
The judge VERY clearly says it was ****:
"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “*****” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “*****” her as many people commonly understand the word “****.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."
I'll repeat the important part about the ****, in case the sheer quantity of words overwhelmed you: the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that

Are you going to prove the decision that includes the above text was changed or overturned?
Until you do, all of your blathering means nothing.

How fckn ignorant are you?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict

"The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump ***** Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her and that he defamed her when he denied her story."

I an purposely using left leaning sites and you still deny it

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Stop crying Rob. You claimed to have quoted me verbatim. You did not. You lied.

A verbatim quote. And it even credits the author.
"average is only useful for lazy people simplifying numbers or for nefarious means" -Thxone

Having wings does not mean the ability to fly.

That's why I said "probably". "Probably" is not "going to" or "will" or "definitely".
Here's a verbatim quote of what I said: "they would probably fly"
Work on your comprehension.

Very good. So you understand what a verbatim quote is which means you left out the word YOUR on purpose.

A verbatim quote from the text above: "understand what a verbatim quote is which means"

Could be.
Why do you let life trigger you so easily?

Says the guy who has a meltdown every time he gets proved wrong (which is quote often).

Facts and Proof not word of mouth.

Wants to see his daughter ***** before he'd believe it happened.
Father of the Year material, right there.

Pot... Kettle....

Show me where I changed my stance to suit my narrative.
AFTER you show me where I "misquoted" you.

I am not looking for any information.

Then stop making claims you can't support, unless your goal is to look the fool on the forum.
If it is, post away. I'll support your cause.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Then stop making claims you can't support, unless your goal is to look the fool on the forum.

Look in the mirror buddy

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

A verbatim quote. And it even credits the author.
"average is only useful for lazy people simplifying numbers or for nefarious means" -Thxone

That's why I said "probably". "Probably" is not "going to" or "will" or "definitely".
Here's a verbatim quote of what I said: "they would probably fly"
Work on your comprehension.

A verbatim quote from the text above: "understand what a verbatim quote is which means"

Says the guy who has a meltdown every time he gets proved wrong (which is quote often).


Wants to see his daughter ***** before he'd believe it happened.
Father of the Year material, right there.

It's this mentality, your mentality that keeps you in your little box. See how you word shit? You are ******* stupid.

Show me where I changed my stance to suit my narrative.
AFTER you show me where I "misquoted" you.

Then stop making claims you can't support, unless your goal is to look the fool on the forum.
If it is, post away. I'll support your cause.

Deny all you want. It will not make you right no matter how many times you say it or spin it.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict

"The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump ***** Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her and that he defamed her when he denied her story."

I an purposely using left leaning sites and you still deny it

I was reading over her testimony. She can't remember jack shit but has nothing but details about what went on in the dressing room. You can tell she was coached what to say step by step.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict

"The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump ***** Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her and that he defamed her when he denied her story."

I an purposely using left leaning sites and you still deny it

That's a news report, not a hearing decision.

Show me proof of the hearing decision being overturned, rescinded, modified, changed, reversed, or any other word you can use that says it is not the same as the original decision.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

I'll wait.

I was reading over her testimony. She can't remember jack shit but has nothing but details about what went on in the dressing room. You can tell she was coached what to say step by step.

Cool story, bro.
Can you show the decision was changed, or not?

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

That's a news report, not a hearing decision.

Show me proof of the hearing decision being overturned, rescinded, modified, changed, reversed, or any other word you can use that says it is not the same as the original decision.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

I'll wait.

Cool story, bro.
Can you show the decision was changed, or not?

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

Show where the Judge, any Judge adjudicated Trump Guilty of ****.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

While we are at it and while you have no problems making false claims against me do you want to go for number two? You know, where you keep claiming I need to SEE the **** happen before you claim I will believe it happened?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Come on Rob, you can't be cooking again. It's Sunday, let Grandma cook.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Show where the Judge, any Judge adjudicated Trump Guilty of ****.

The whole decision: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

A verbatim quote FROM that decision:
"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “*****” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “*****” her as many people commonly understand the word “****.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."

I'll repeat the important part about the ****, in case the sheer quantity of words overwhelmed you: the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that
Seriously, how the **** can you even ATTEMPT to argue that this is not real? Have your caretaker help you if needed, but show me where the decision has been changed.
Until you do, your arguments are simply a mentally ill person shouting at a cloud.

While we are at it and while you have no problems making false claims against me do you want to go for number two? You know, where you keep claiming I need to SEE the **** happen before you claim I will believe it happened?

YOUR words, VERBATIM: "Unless I see it with my own eyes I cannot say without a doubt that a **** occurred."
The word "see" and the words "my own eyes" are rather important here, no?

Or is that rule for anyone else that is *****, but not your daughter? Do you apply it selectively?

Come on Rob, you can't be cooking again. It's Sunday, let Grandma cook.

Nope. Packaging up stuff I sold online. Grandmas have been dead for 25 years and 55 years.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

The whole decision: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

A verbatim quote FROM that decision:
"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “*****” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “*****” her as many people commonly understand the word “****.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."

I'll repeat the important part about the ****, in case the sheer quantity of words overwhelmed you: the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that
Seriously, how the **** can you even ATTEMPT to argue that this is not real? Have your caretaker help you if needed, but show me where the decision has been changed.
Until you do, your arguments are simply a mentally ill person shouting at a cloud.

So you wont or can't show the adjudication?

YOUR words, VERBATIM: "Unless I see it with my own eyes I cannot say without a doubt that a **** occurred."
The word "see" and the words "my own eyes" are rather important here, no?

CONTEXT? There IS more to that conversation.

Or is that rule for anyone else that is *****, but not your daughter? Do you apply it selectively?

I told you exactly why I would need visual proof. You ignored it so you could talk shit just like you did with Buck. When you call him a pedo. You claim I need to see rapes happen for some sick perverted need.

Nope. Packaging up stuff I sold online. Grandmas have been dead for 25 years and 55 years.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Actually, it does. The decision exists regardless of the motivation of the judge, the jury, the failure of Trump's attorneys to hire ThxOne for his stellar defense capabilities, the day of week the decisions occurred, the phase of the moon, the color of the carpet in the judge's chamber.

Unless the decision is changed or overturned, the decision is locked in. Nobody's personal opinion changes that.
Just like ThxOne's personal opinion doesn't change the definitions of "in", or "irony", "tautology", or "verbatim".

I posted a link to the legal decision several times, with quotes taken directly from within the decision itself. The quotes from that decision indicate that Trump is legally considered a ****** by court decision.
I posted this after calling him a ******, and Spokey challenged my use of the word.

He wanted proof. I gave him proof. And then he spent a ton of posts trying to spin out of the reality of the legal decision. But he never showed that the decision was changed of overturned.
So it stands.

The reality of the decision is the judge declared Trump liable for something the jury found him not liable of doing. Unless something has changed in the legal system, Judges can't do that. What the judge really did is twisted logic and words (much like THX does with the word 'in') to include **** so that people like you can run around shouting "He's a ******, he's a ******." For anybody looking for accurate context, I think the Newsweek article does a good job deciphering the BS without being overly long.

So let's put this all in proper context. Trump was tried by a jury of his "peers" and found not liable for ****. Trump was not found guilty (or not guilty) of or convicted (or not convicted) of anything since that can only happen in a criminal case. A politically motivated judge then took upon himself to play "I get to define words" and labeled Trump a ****** and Trump was actually never found guilty of, convicted of or found liable for ****. Because this wasn't a trial by judge, but a trial by jury, Trump was never found liable ****. Furthermore, the only reason this trial even took place is NY amended a law just so loonie bird E Jean Carroll could bring this case. And by loonie bird, I mean this woman is ******** insane and has no credibility what-so-ever. Furthermore, most people with half a brain have concluded a billionaire that spends his time covering up affairs with pornstars and trades his model wife for a newer model wife whenever it suits him, probably isn't raping or sexually abusing women department store dressing rooms.

Additionally, I find it interesting that NY felt compelled to pass a law to recognize the ****/SA survivors, but made it a civil law, not criminal and only had a 1 year window; I smell a fish. What if the ****** was a broke as phuck? What if the victim was broke and couldn't afford legal representation? The law really only works in a case with the metrics of the E Jean Carroll case. If the alleged victim and perp aren't relatively affluent, the case just doesn't work. Looks more like the weaponization of the judicial branch than looking out for the survivors of SA. Because Trump is getting the short end of the weaponization of the legal system right now, the lefties are doing back flips without recognizing the danger of weaponizing the judiciary, restricting free speech, mandating vaccines, etc. And the left claims it's the right that doesn't respect the US Constitution.

Lastly, this is one of those things that falls into there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Trump (or Biden or whomever) that there really isn't a need to invent one out of gossamer.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-donald-trump-found-guilty-****-1799935

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/05/09/trump-liable-******-abuse/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...donald-trump-****-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

https://apnews.com/article/trump-****-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

E Jean Carroll: Jury finds Trump sexually abused writer in NY department store

The jury in the civil case also finds the former president liable for defaming writer E Jean Carroll.

www.bbc.com