Donald Trump

[SebastianBlue]

It actually went out in June. I suspect there’s been several follow ups that haven’t come to light yet.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-army-fundraising-email/

From what I understand, the Trump campaign has continued to use similar messaging, including via unaffiliated (fake “news”’articles, political analysis, etc.) ‘targeted’ digital media ads or sponsored content running on various social media platforms.

And they have certainly integrated it in to his rallies, both directly from Trump and via his surrogates and sycophants.

 

[Dax777]

Well this is fucking horrific

Defend this @Dax777 View attachment 1767

You are clearly confused about what I tend to care about or discuss. Generally, Trump's campaign mail doesn't fall within my purview of interest.

To that effect, you can assume whatever your position is to be exactly mine or exactly the opposite of mine. Neither claim would peak my interest.

 

[Dax777]

[waits for the Trump apologists to assure us that this continued line of email messaging is simply a campaign messaging and merchandising device that is not intended in any way to further organise and encourage the hostile, heavily armed elements of his base to take action against Trump’s enemies, as he publicly defines them from day-to-day]

Sebastian Blue are you a College Professor?

 

[SWP's back]

You are clearly confused about what I tend to care about or discuss. Generally, Trump's campaign mail doesn't fall within my purview of interest.

To that effect, you can assume whatever your position is to be exactly mine or exactly the opposite of mine. Neither claim would peak my interest.

Don’t worry, I will.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

You are clearly confused about what I tend to care about or discuss. Generally, Trump's campaign mail doesn't fall within my purview of interest.

To that effect, you can assume whatever your position is to be exactly mine or exactly the opposite of mine. Neither claim would peak my interest.

So 'I it doesn't interest me' (and I'm paraphrasing here) roughly translates to 'I can't really defend that without sounding full MAGA'?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

That seems like the argument the Prosecutors intend to try.

A sub question that may be relevant to the above would be whether the person trying to disposses him of the weapon is aware that he is illegally possessing the weapon.

It makes no sense to have a law that says if you illegally have a weapon you are barred from using it to defend yourself against bodily harm.

Now let me describe a hypothetical here: Suppose a 30 year-old with a club attacks a 15 year old and swings on him but misses his head. But in the process of swinging a gun falls from his pocket. The 15 year-old grabs the gun and shoots the guy.

Your conclusion above would suggest the 15 year old couldn't defend himself with the gun since it's illegal for him to possess it (on account that he is 15). I highly doubt that argument would work..
And thus unlikely to work in the Kenosha case either.

What Prosecutors seemingly would need to show is that it was unreasonable of the shooter to assume he was in danger of bodily harm or death simply because someone attempted to disposses him of an illegally held gun.

The fallacy in the argument is that the 15 yr old was never the illegal owner of the weapon, nor was he running around brandishing it.

What is the point of ANY restriction on gun ownership (age, felony record, mental stability) IF you can illegally own, open carry, brandish, and use said weapon in the street?

Why did I do all the training and spend all the money to ensure I am a legal gun owner IF none of that is required to allow me to LEGALLY carry it, brandish it and use it in self defence? After all, self defence is the ONLY reason I have it, right?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Long term friend of FLOTUS thrown under the bus to cover up Inaugural Committee finance improprieties.

I listened to the whole segment last night, including the interview. I can only describe it as a criminal enterprise.

 

[Dax777]

So 'I it doesn't interest me' (and I'm paraphrasing here) roughly translates to 'I can't really defend that without sounding full MAGA'?

Exactly! You are a true detective.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I listened to the whole segment last night, including the interview. I can only describe it as a criminal enterprise.

Is, was, always will be.

Trump Sr was a racist, slumlord, tax cheat.
There is a good reason DJT took over the family business, while other family members went into other professions. However, that all knew they were part of a criminal enterprise, even the older sister who was a Federal Judge...who resigned as soon as the NYT article on Trump finances was published and ALL of the kids were shown to have been a tax dodge for their father, and complicit in it their whole lives!

 

[Silva_Spell]

The fallacy in the argument is that the 15 yr old was never the illegal owner of the weapon, nor was he running around brandishing it.

What is the point of ANY restriction on gun ownership (age, felony record, mental stability) IF you can illegally own, open carry, brandish, and use said weapon in the street?

Why did I do all the training and spend all the money to ensure I am a legal gun owner IF none of that is required to allow me to LEGALLY carry it, brandish it and use it in self defence? After all, self defence is the ONLY reason I have it, right?

Think this would cover it.