Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Santti]

No organisation here, nope. None. Just a guy that strolled by and happened to fall into the building, I'm sure.

I'm sure he just heard that there were some cables and wires that needed to be bundled together. All that gear is because it's a very dangerous job, and he's a little shy. But he couldn't help himself anymore, and decided to just barge in. Such a nice guy.

[Beefhammer]

How? How was that more organized? I’m just going by FBI reports. Do you have some super secret insider information to share? If so, why aren’t you testifying before Congress? Do your civic duty man, get the word out there.

Are you ignoring the capital tour the day before and communications with lawmakers? But yes, 9lease link me those FBI files.

[Ripster42]

If they just close down and cease operations, they are still liable for their actions - the Officers/Owners. However, since they are "insolvent", unless there are criminal charges or sanctions, they will probably go without recriminations. I hope there might be some personal liability for the ongoing fines, but we'll see.

The files don't disappear just because the company dissolves. With a standing court order to produce records, I'd imagine that destroying those records would be a crime. I don't imagine that the fines would start accruing for people in their personal capacity until a revised order from the judge is handed down, but they're still responsible for the preservation of those files.

[Breccia]

The fact that they’re trying to start a new company to avoid the fines should make for interesting rulings.

Sounds like what the NRA did, right?

[Ripster42]

The fact that they’re trying to start a new company to avoid the fines should make for interesting rulings.

There's a reason they're called LIMITED liability corporations. In most cases, liability doesn't transfer to the owners. This is one of the cases where it would. I don't know where they got their legal advice, but it's terrible. Creating a new company and dissolving this one increases the liability of the owners in a personal capacity. There's literally a term for it, "Piercing the Veil" or "Piercing the Corporate Veil." One of the main reasons for doing so is exactly what these guys are trying to do: evading court orders.

[Strange One]

No organisation here, nope. None. Just a guy that strolled by and happened to fall into the building, I'm sure.

Pretty ironic, the punisher would kill him for being a criminal. Yet he wears his mark like a badge of honor.

[gondrin]

Fucking hope not. He’s damaged goods now, somebody else needs to take up the torch.

- - - Updated - - -



Dude I don’t have to put her on a pedestal to think she shouldn’t have been shot, don’t you start straw-manning too.

You do realize that trying to break into any secured area, whether it is a police station, military base or any other place that is designated as a Federally Secure area, like the Capital building during a session of Congress can get a person shot. The Capital police do have a right to use deadly force if needed, much like if you charged a military installation with the intent to do harm.

The moment the crowd chanted "Hang Mike Pence!" is all the evidence the Capital police need to use deadly force against anyone trying to break into a secure area as it is a direct threat against the then current Vice President. The moment they erected working gallows is all the evidence the Capital police need to use deadly force against anyone trying to break into the Capital building. The crowd is lucky that more weren't shot.

Sorry but not sorry. She got exactly the same result that is expected from a person trying to subvert an election by force. Using force to change an election or using force for political aims is the literal definition of a terrorist which is what she, and the rest of the insurrectionists, are. TERRORISTS!!.

They are not simple rioters, they are not simple protesters. Each person who entered the Capital building the intent to change the election through force is a terrorist plain and simple. If you are arguing against ANY of these points, YOU are a terrorist sympathizer and will be labeled as such from now on.

I watched the raw videos the news shown. I watched and read a large amount of the personal videos that the terrorists posted on their social media pages. Each one of them had the goal of using violence to subvert a legitimate election. It doesn't matter what they believe. It doesn't matter what they wish for. The election was legitimate and those people who stormed the Capital building are TERRORISTS because of it. They couldn't handle the fact that they voted for a loser, whom was a loser his ENTIRE life, and couldn't let their ego go.

[Endus]

I don’t have the energy for you today man, but your entire position depends on framing which means it’s flimsy. An alternate framing would be these people believed the country’s democratic process had been subverted and set out to defend that democracy and some were murdered by state actors or as you like to put it ‘fascists’. Because in that framing the Capitol police are the fascists.

And that "framing" is a lie. It's rooted in fascism and misanthropy and celebration of violence. It's a fantasy story told by fascists to fascists, to pat each other on the back for being fascists.

So that "framing" still identifies the perpetrators of the January 6 insurrection as violent fascists with malicious intent. You're just making us go one step deeper into exploring how they justify being that way, to themselves. It doesn't change the facts.

If you haven’t figured it out yet I don’t agree with your position or theirs because both are too narrow to take in the full context and nuance of the events of that day.

I mean, you're lying about the facts of what happened. You're rejecting the full context.

So many people and especially here on this forum seem to feel there is only one true interpretation of reality, theirs, and consider outside possibilities as in conflict with their interpretation even though they may be totally congruent.

Funny thing; reality is objective. Condemning us for recognizing that is certainly, I guess, a take.

Which is a long winded way of saying two things can be true at once. Don’t fall into the trap of false dichotomies, it’s really easy to do.

Two contradictory things about the same specific events can't both be true at once.

Your subjectively-preferred falsehoods are not a valid counter-argument to the facts of what happened. You don't get to claim equal credence for lies and truth.

[Strange One]

I don't think they actually understand the Punisher, tbh. He's not the only one to have used it, and also be someone the Punisher would.... well, punish.

I think they just worship vigilante violence, without understanding the context of how it occurs.

[cubby]

The fact that they’re trying to start a new company to avoid the fines should make for interesting rulings.

That kind of behavior has been tried by better men, failing miserably. Bankruptcy court (and case law) is replete with instances where corporations (and their Officers) attempted to avoid responsibility for debts and obligations by BK'ing a company, forming a new one, and then buying up the old company's assets. Really bright groups of people did that decades ago and the court shut them down.

Those Ninja fucks are neither bright nor forward thinking - forming a new company to avoid the fines and obligations of the old will just piss the courts off, and that last thing you want is a federal judge with discretionary power pissed off. Should be fun to watch Ass-Hat-Ninja's continuing demise.

My guess would be they will see those fines crossing over to the officers of the company (depending on how the corporation was set up - hopefully an "Inc" rather than a LLC), and if they keep fucking around with those files and not returning them, then possible contempt jail time. Get your popcorn ready.

- - - Updated - - -

So is anyone thinking that Trump plans to announce his run for President again on the 15th?

He is just dumb enough to think that's a good idea. No idea what Jan 15 will be, but almost guaranteed to be poorly attended and stupidly organized. Trump will either no-show or just rank away with word-salad.

[Twdft]

So is anyone thinking that Trump plans to announce his run for President again on the 15th?

Aren't there campaign finance laws that restrict what you can do with money donated to you once you officially announced to run and a lot of candidates do so as late as possible because of it? 2 years early seems excessive.

But then again agent orange never cared much about the law...

[DarkTZeratul]

Aren't there campaign finance laws that restrict what you can do with money donated to you once you officially announced to run and a lot of candidates do so as late as possible because of it? 2 years early seems excessive.

You're talking about a man who announced his candidacy for reelection a week into his presidency.

[cubby]

Aren't there campaign finance laws that restrict what you can do with money donated to you once you officially announced to run and a lot of candidates do so as late as possible because of it? 2 years early seems excessive.

But then again agent orange never cared much about the law...

There are plenty, most of which are ignored unless they fall into felony use for private expenses. But if the money is used ever remotely for election purposes, Trump gets away with it. Also, Trump's last big money grab, right after the Nov 9 election, had a caveat that the money can be used for legal fees and a percentage went back to the GOP slush fund.

[Strange One]

There are plenty, most of which are ignored unless they fall into felony use for private expenses. But if the money is used ever remotely for election purposes, Trump gets away with it. Also, Trump's last big money grab, right after the Nov 9 election, had a caveat that the money can be used for legal fees and a percentage went back to the GOP slush fund.

Can you link some evidence of this?

[cubby]

Can you link some evidence of this?

Can you be more specific on what you're asking for here?

[Strange One]

Can you be more specific on what you're asking for here?

What part? Everything Cubby stated is common knowledge for anyone paying attention…

I believe it 100%.

I'd just like links that I could use when I argue these points.

[Strange One]

What points specifically? For someone agreeing you seem to have difficulty explaining what common knowledge you need links to…

I'd love to have links showing funds were used for campaigning, that would back up a lot of my arguments.

[Strange One]

Really? It was literally listed in the fine print from that fundraising campaign. Anyone who doubts it is brain damaged.

Can you link the pages when they were shown?

[Strange One]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...9f8_story.html

There’s an article for you since you missed it when it was happening.

That's incredible useful thank you.

Trump's nothing but a fraud and it's nice to have that info to back that up arguments to certain friends.

ence in this very thread… have you ever learned about search functions?

I know how to search, but i'm not sure a search function would even work for the questions i'd like to ask.

[DarkTZeratul]

Try doing more than posting in forums. Paying even a bit of attention would have provided you with this information over a year ago. Lord only knows what bs you let get by you if you missed THIS shit.

There's really no need to call someone out for not obsessively reading everything, and who may not have even been here a year ago, just for asking for sources.