the_stormcrow

joined 1 year ago
[–] the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

It's hopeless my dude. Lemmy is filled with either wannabe revolutionaries or establishment toadies. There's no healthy scepticism to be found yet.

[–] the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago

What does "quietly" even mean? Didn't take out ads in Times Square?

[–] the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Clearly it's the dude riding that pussy

[–] the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Multiple things can be bad at the same time. It is also possible to fight without being barbaric.

[–] the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Got it. So it's banned if elected, accountable officials decline to use taxpayer funds to purchase a book that might not be age appropriate.

[–] the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

By banned do you mean unable to be purchased by a private citizen by any legal means?

[–] the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

By far the best part of the service

[–] the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Now apply this same reasoning to other life concepts we've been told, and welcome to enlightenment.

(Or black pilling, YMMV)

[–] the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

This is only a good argument if the conduct regulated by the law is bad in and of itself.

[–] the_stormcrow@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the link. All the down voted I'm getting suggest people think I am defending him, but I am just being a realist.

The link shows he acknowledged the US presidency moved on without him. However, he still maintains it was rigged.

That's the rub, and that's what the prosecutor has to show - Trump either knew or recklessly disregarded that the election was not rigged, and thus all his crazy actions were in bad faith.

Can the prosecutor prove that in court? Quite possibly. Is it the slam dunk that everyone in this thread seems to be celebrating? No.

view more: next ›