Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 14:04, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an UNDERLYING
>>>>>> felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't understand the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
>>>>>
>>>>> There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification was
>>>>> undertaken in furtherance of.
>>>>
>>>> Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
>>>
>>> Federal election contribution crimes.
>>
>> And Bragg has no authority to prosecute that. He's pulling shit out
>> of his ass.
>
> He doesn't need authority to prosecute those crimes.
>
> The statute simply requires that there ARE crimes that the falsifications of
> business records were intended to cover up.
>
> You agree that Trump did falsify the records, right?
>
> :-)

Those are misdemeanors. Bragg suggested four _possibilities_ of underlying
crimes to turn them into felonies, meaning he was an ape flinging shit at
the wall trying to see what would stick. Now he is claiming campaign
finance crimes, but that "underlying crime" didn't occur until AFTER Trump
won, in 2017, and the payments reimbursing his lawyer's payments are only
illegal if construed as a campaign contribution. But if they were illegal
campaign contributions, as opposed to personal expenditures, why didn't the
Justice Department prosecute Trump for that?

Chris wrote:
> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
>>>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?
>>>>
>>>> No he didn't. Maybe you should be rape hoaxed.
>>>
>>> You're getting incoherent. Are the drugs wearing off?
>>>
>>>>>>> Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
>>>>>>> prefer the wild west.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one needs vigilantes.
>>>>
>>>> Self-defense is not vigilantism.
>>>
>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
> Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm.
>

Those in the United States who lawfully carry a concealed handgun
hope they never need to use it, but want to be prepared for that
eventuality.

Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist  - in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually
>>>>>>>>>>> assaulted one
>>>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
>>>>
>>>> Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
>>>> AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
>>>
>>> Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
>>>>>>> prefer the wild west.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When everyone is carrying a gun
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But not everyone carries a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>> The simple fact is:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
>>>>>
>>>>> Deal with it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
>>>> gun?
>>>>
>>>> And why the focus on the "developed world"?
>>>
>>> Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth, social
>>> development, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mexico has fierce gun laws
>>>> and a much higher murder rate.
>>> And there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
>>>
>>
>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>
> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to do to
> survive.

Poverty is the natural state of man. There are plenty of poor civilized people,
and I don't see them turning their neighborhoods into crime-ridden ghettos.

Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
>>> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people.
>>> The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
>>
>> Are these kids suburban whites?
>
> Watch the racist speak!

Noticing is "racist". LOL!

HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.

On 2024-04-20 21:32, Anonymous wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 14:04, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an
>>>>>>> UNDERLYING
>>>>>>> felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't understand the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification
>>>>>> was undertaken in furtherance of.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
>>>>
>>>> Federal election contribution crimes.
>>>
>>> And Bragg has no authority to prosecute that. He's pulling shit out
>>> of his ass.
>>
>> He doesn't need authority to prosecute those crimes.
>>
>> The statute simply requires that there ARE crimes that the
>> falsifications of business records were intended to cover up.
>>
>> You agree that Trump did falsify the records, right?
>>
>> :-)
>
> Those are misdemeanors. Bragg suggested four _possibilities_ of underlying

They're misdemeanors unless he shows they were committed to cover up
another crime.

> crimes to turn them into felonies, meaning he was an ape flinging shit at
> the wall trying to see what would stick. Now he is claiming campaign
> finance crimes, but that "underlying crime" didn't occur until AFTER Trump
> won, in 2017, and the payments reimbursing his lawyer's payments are only
> illegal if construed as a campaign contribution. But if they were illegal
> campaign contributions, as opposed to personal expenditures, why didn't the
> Justice Department prosecute Trump for that?

You remember that his lawyer went to jail for this, right?

Cohen pleaded guilty to

'and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution at the
request of a candidate (Trump) for the "principal purpose of influencing
[the] election".'

On 2024-04-20 21:33, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>>
>> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need
>> to do to survive.
>
> Poverty is the natural state of man. There are plenty of poor civilized
> people,
> and I don't see them turning their neighborhoods into crime-ridden ghettos.

Poverty when surrounded by wealth is NOT a natural state.

Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>> Chris wrote:
>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customer or business
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
>>>>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?
>>>>>
>>>>> No he didn't. Maybe you should be rape hoaxed.
>>>>
>>>> You're getting incoherent. Are the drugs wearing off?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
>>>>>>>> prefer the wild west.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one needs vigilantes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-defense is not vigilantism.
>>>>
>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
>>>
>>> Yes it is.
>>
>> Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm.
>>
>
> Those in the United States who lawfully carry a concealed handgun
> hope they never need to use it, but want to be prepared for that
> eventuality.

Why? I've been to the US. It isn't as lawless you make out.

As a visitor I'm more worried about getting caught in cross-fire than
actually being a victim of crime.

Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist  - in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually
>>>>>>>>>>>> assaulted one
>>>>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
>>>>> AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
>>>>
>>>> Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
>>>>>>>> prefer the wild west.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When everyone is carrying a gun
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But not everyone carries a gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simple fact is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deal with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
>>>>> gun?
>>>>>
>>>>> And why the focus on the "developed world"?
>>>>
>>>> Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth, social
>>>> development, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mexico has fierce gun laws
>>>>> and a much higher murder rate.
>>>> And there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>>
>> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to do to
>> survive.
>
> Poverty is the natural state of man.

No it isn't.

> There are plenty of poor civilized people,
> and I don't see them turning their neighborhoods into crime-ridden ghettos.

The difference is that in developed countries there's alot of clear
inequalities between the haves and have nots and the wealthy only have
interests in becoming richer. In poorer countries people are more similar.

On 2024-04-20 21:33, Anonymous wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting
>>>> people. The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
>>>
>>> Are these kids suburban whites?
>>
>> Watch the racist speak!
>
> Noticing is "racist". LOL!
>
> HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.

That's what a racist would say alright!

Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:

> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
[...]
>>>>> Mexico has fierce gun laws
>>>>> and a much higher murder rate.
>>>> And there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>>
>> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to do to
>> survive.
>
> Poverty is the natural state of man. There are plenty of poor civilized people,
> and I don't see them turning their neighborhoods into crime-ridden ghettos.

No, poverty is not the "natural state" of man. Poverty is a state where
the income of people is much lower than the average and others are
richer in comparison.

If all people in a society are more or less equal, it is not "poverty".

You are right, that poverty does not automatically lead to crime. But
often this is the case, since poverty can lead to desperation due to the
fact, that people realize quite well that their poverty is not a
"natural state" but because of others who are much richer and don't want
them to have the same opportunities and power.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:

> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people.
>>>> The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
>>>
>>> Are these kids suburban whites?
>>
>> Watch the racist speak!
>
> Noticing is "racist". LOL!

Yes.

> HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.

No, it doesn't. What matters is that people force others to live in
conditions they would not accept for themself. Unfortunately those in
power in the US are often white and the others not. But this does not
mean, that black people are "naturally" different.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>>
>> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to do to
>> survive.
>
> Poverty is the natural state of man.

False

> There are plenty of poor civilized people,
> and I don't see them turning their neighborhoods into crime-ridden ghettos.

It isn't (absolute) poverty on its own, it's inequality and relative
poverty which drives desperation and crime.

On 2024-04-21 13:15, Chris wrote:
> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:

....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one needs vigilantes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Self-defense is not vigilantism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>
>>> Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm.
>>>
>>
>> Those in the United States who lawfully carry a concealed handgun
>> hope they never need to use it, but want to be prepared for that
>> eventuality.
>
> Why? I've been to the US. It isn't as lawless you make out.
>
> As a visitor I'm more worried about getting caught in cross-fire than
> actually being a victim of crime.
>

Or stepping somewhere and being shot as trespasser :-D

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 14:04, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
>>>>
>>>> Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
>>>> AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
>>>
>>>
>>> "Some slut"? As in, ONE person?
>>>
>>>
>>> Found this for you:
>>>
>>> 'Weinstein has sexually assaulted at least three women. He was convicted in
>>> 2020 of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and sexually assaulting Miriam
>>> Haley,[3] a production assistant.[38] In 2022, he was convicted of raping and
>>> sexually assaulting an unnamed woman[4] who later revealed herself to be
>>> Evgeniya Chernyshova, a model and actor living in Italy.[39]'
>>>
>>> Now let's look at the specific cases.
>>>
>>> 'He was convicted in 2020 of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and
>>> sexually assaulting Miriam Haley':
>>>
>>> 'The jury found Mr. Weinstein, 67, guilty of raping an aspiring actress,
>>> Jessica Mann, at a Midtown hotel in 2013, and forcibly performing oral sex on
>>> a production assistant, Miriam Haley, in his Lower Manhattan apartment in 2006.'
>>
>> Jessica Mann claims he "raped" her in 2013, but continued to have
>> sex with him until 2017!
>>
>> Must have been "horrible" for her!
>>
>
> Your source for that is...?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-trial-jessica-mann.html

Arno Welzel wrote:
> Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:
>
>> Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people.
>>>>> The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
>>>>
>>>> Are these kids suburban whites?
>>>
>>> Watch the racist speak!
>>
>> Noticing is "racist". LOL!
>
> Yes.
>
>> HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
>
> No, it doesn't. What matters is that people force others to live in
> conditions they would not accept for themself. Unfortunately those in
> power in the US are often white and the others not. But this does not
> mean, that black people are "naturally" different.
>

"Housing discrimination" has been illegal in the United States for over
fifty years now. There is no forcing blacks to live in the conditions
they live in. It's not our fault that they shit in their nests.

Race matters.

On 2024-04-23 20:56, Anonymous wrote:
> Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:
>>
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by
>>>>>> shooting people.
>>>>>> The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are these kids suburban whites?
>>>>
>>>> Watch the racist speak!
>>>
>>> Noticing is "racist". LOL!
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. What matters is that people force others to live in
>> conditions they would not accept for themself. Unfortunately those in
>> power in the US are often white and the others not. But this does not
>> mean, that black people are "naturally" different.
>>
>
> "Housing discrimination" has been illegal in the United States for over
> fifty years now. There is no forcing blacks to live in the conditions
> they live in. It's not our fault that they shit in their nests.
>
> Race matters.

And you pretty much PROVE you're racism.

Thank you.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-04-21 13:15, Chris wrote:
>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>> Chris wrote:
>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>>>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one needs vigilantes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Self-defense is not vigilantism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Those in the United States who lawfully carry a concealed handgun
>>> hope they never need to use it, but want to be prepared for that
>>> eventuality.
>>
>> Why? I've been to the US. It isn't as lawless you make out.
>>
>> As a visitor I'm more worried about getting caught in cross-fire than
>> actually being a victim of crime.
>>
>
>
> Or stepping somewhere and being shot as trespasser :-D

Or if it's the police getting shot for being brown "just in case".

Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
> Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:
>>
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people.
>>>>>> The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are these kids suburban whites?
>>>>
>>>> Watch the racist speak!
>>>
>>> Noticing is "racist". LOL!
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. What matters is that people force others to live in
>> conditions they would not accept for themself. Unfortunately those in
>> power in the US are often white and the others not. But this does not
>> mean, that black people are "naturally" different.
>>
>
> "Housing discrimination" has been illegal in the United States for over
> fifty years now.

Just like gender discrimination. It still happens all over the place.

> There is no forcing blacks to live in the conditions
> they live in.

Discrimination is not the same as "forcing".

> It's not our fault that they shit in their nests.
>
> Race matters.

To racists.

Chris wrote:
> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>> Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:
>>>
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people.
>>>>>>> The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are these kids suburban whites?
>>>>>
>>>>> Watch the racist speak!
>>>>
>>>> Noticing is "racist". LOL!
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. What matters is that people force others to live in
>>> conditions they would not accept for themself. Unfortunately those in
>>> power in the US are often white and the others not. But this does not
>>> mean, that black people are "naturally" different.
>>>
>>
>> "Housing discrimination" has been illegal in the United States for over
>> fifty years now.
>
> Just like gender discrimination. It still happens all over the place.

ALL companies with HR departments BEND OVER BACKWARDS to hire wahmen.

>> There is no forcing blacks to live in the conditions
>> they live in.
>
> Discrimination is not the same as "forcing".

You might as well accuse White men of witchcraft.

>> It's not our fault that they shit in their nests.
>>
>> Race matters.
>
> To racists.
>

Reality is "racist".

On 2024-04-24 19:42, Anonymous wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>> Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>> Anonymous, 2024-04-21 06:33:
>>>>
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by
>>>>>>>> shooting people.
>>>>>>>> The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are these kids suburban whites?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Watch the racist speak!
>>>>>
>>>>> Noticing is "racist". LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>> HINT: Race matters. It matters a LOT.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. What matters is that people force others to live in
>>>> conditions they would not accept for themself. Unfortunately those in
>>>> power in the US are often white and the others not. But this does not
>>>> mean, that black people are "naturally" different.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Housing discrimination" has been illegal in the United States for over
>>> fifty years now.
>>
>> Just like gender discrimination. It still happens all over the place.
>
> ALL companies with HR departments BEND OVER BACKWARDS to hire wahmen.

Can't get a woman to even look at you, huh?

>
>>> There is no forcing blacks to live in the conditions
>>> they live in.
>>
>> Discrimination is not the same as "forcing".
>
> You might as well accuse White men of witchcraft.
>
>>> It's not our fault that they shit in their nests.
>>>
>>> Race matters.
>>
>> To racists.
>>
>
> Reality is "racist".

Says the racist.