Trump47 First Week & Beyond Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 24K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
1. The appeals court did not say the sentence was harsh. Again you lie. Here is the Second Circuit's discussion of this point:

Accordingly, while a life sentence for selling drugs alone would give pause, we would be hard put to find such a sentence beyond the bounds of reason for drug crimes of this magnitude. But the facts of this case involve much more than simply facilitating the sale of narcotics. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ulbricht commissioned at least five murders in the course of protecting Silk Road's anonymity, a finding that Ulbricht does not challenge in this appeal."

Thus are you incorrect.

2. The reason he wasn't charged with murder was that the government didn't think it could prove beyond a reasonable doubt after it was revealed that the two agents were shaking down criminals for money. That was sheer luck on the part of Ross -- he did what he did, and that the cops had issues was a blessing. Otherwise, he would have been convicted for murder.

The lack of charges means nothing. It doesn't change whether he did it. And he did, as the district court AND three appeals court judges found. They described the evidence as ample and unambiguous.

3. Why would I take that deal? If you're bullshitting, and I know that, then other posters deserve to know that you are bullshitting to them. If you don't post bullshit, then we have no quarrel.

4. I think what's really going on here is that you realized that you got played by the documentaries. And you don't want to admit it to yourself, so instead you lash out at me. It's common bullying. The sin you claim was correcting you; somehow you twisted that into "realizing that at least something is wrong with you, and then you go back to doing the same annoying shit you always do within a couple of days" -- which is not at all an acceptable thing to say, its incredible stupidity notwithstanding. Basically, you're a classic toxic masculinity case.

As a general rule, I think that posts intended to be intentionally hurtful, without any rhetorical connection to the discourse, should warrant discipline. Like this series from the chicken brothers. It's not something we should tolerate. It's bullying. It's pathetic. It reflects poorly on all of us should we indulge this conduct.
Click to expand...

You just wrote another novel admitting that allegations established by only a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. "more likely than not", the lowest standard in any court and used primarily in civil courts, were a major factor in a man getting two life sentences plus 40 years. I have a problem with that. And I find your idiotic prediction abouty how any criminal trial would have turned out but for excluded evidence to be utterly ridiculous. There is other evidence that all these paid hits were being suggested to him by others, and that he had no part in actually coming up with the plans for them. So I have no idea how a criminal trial would have turned out. The fact that you seem positive about what the result would be is, well, arrogant. Sorry you feel bullied when anyone challenges your constant over the top uninformed arrogance. Entertain the possibility that you are a big part of the problem. Again. But try and be more concise this time.
 
Last edited:
www.independent.co.uk

Trump claims FEMA is getting ‘in the way’ and pitches abolishing it

Trump wants to shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency and let states handle their own disaster needs. ‘I don’t think we should give California anything,’ he said
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

President Donald Trump on Wednesday floated abolishing the federal agency charged with the response to all kinds of natural disasters and other emergencies across the nation, and leave the task of responding to emergencies up to individual state governments instead.
 
altmin said:
www.independent.co.uk

Trump claims FEMA is getting ‘in the way’ and pitches abolishing it

Trump wants to shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency and let states handle their own disaster needs. ‘I don’t think we should give California anything,’ he said
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

President Donald Trump on Wednesday floated abolishing the federal agency charged with the response to all kinds of natural disasters and other emergencies across the nation, and leave the task of responding to emergencies up to individual state governments instead.
Click to expand...


Wow. Very similar to his COVID response — emergencies are for the states to sort out.

Also: “They don’t care about North Carolina, the Democrats don’t care about North Carolina.”

Says all FEMA does is “complicate everything. FEMA has not done e their job for the last four years. I had FEMA working really well. We had hurricanes in Florida … but unless you have certain types of leadership … it gets in the way. …”
 
Last edited:
I tell you what, man, it looks like I picked the right date- May 30, the day before hurricane season!- to leave Third World Alabama for good and move back to good ol’ home sweet North Carolina.
 
LosPollosHermanos said:
You just wrote another novel admitting that allegations established by only a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. "more likely than not", the lowest standard in any court and used primarily in civil courts, were a major factor in a man getting two life sentences plus 40 years. I have a problem with that. And I find your idiotic prediction abouty how any criminal trial would have turned out but for excluded evidence to be utterly ridiculous. There is other evidence that all these paid hits were being suggested to him by others, and that he had no part in actually coming up with the plans for them. So I have no idea how a criminal trial would have turned out. The fact that you seem positive about what the result would be is, well, arrogant. Sorry you feel bullied when anyone challenges your constant over the top uninformed arrogance. Entertain the possibility that you are a big part of the problem. Again. But try and be more concise this time.
Click to expand...
Why are you doing this? This is such an odd hill for you to die on, but it appears that's what you want.

1. It was not my characterization of the excluded evidence -- it was the Second Circuit's. I've added basically zero gloss here. I'm just quoting verbatim from the opinion. I expressed no opinion as to whether he would have been convicted; I merely cited the district and appeals courts contentions.

2. I'm sorry that you "have a problem" with the use of preponderance evidence in sentencing but it's common. It's so common and unobjectionable that Ulbrecht didn't even seriously challenge it. Sentencing factors have never been required to be beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, until 2000, judges could rely on facts not found by the jury to justify a sentencing enhancement that would yield a sentence greater than the statutory maximum.

Anyway, there's this, from Second Circuit:

The drug offenses alone—ignoring all other illicit materials sold on the site —yielded a calculated offense level of 50. Of that calculation, only two levels are attributable to Ulbricht's “credible threats of directed violence” associated with the murders for hire. PSR ¶ 94. Thus, even without considering that enhancement, the drug convictions yielded an offense level of 48, which is higher than the maximum offense level recognized by the Guidelines, for which a sentence of life imprisonment is recommended even for someone who, like Ulbricht, has no prior criminal convictions.

3. You keep using this phrase "uninformed arrogance." Why? It's clear from this discussion that you are patently uninformed, because you couldn't even bother to read the opinions in the case. You watched a documentary instead, lol. Those documentaries are always flattering toward the subject because that's the condition for them getting made. If you didn't know that, you should have. In any event, now you do.

4. You have no substantive response to bullying, I see. Every bully in the world blames the victim -- just as you did (in a completely non-specific way). Your behavior here is like a domestic or child abuser. I have no idea if you've done those things, but a person who has done those things would post just like you. You think about it. When you're bullying people and then blaming them for it, you have badly lost your way. You've basically become MAGA muck. Congrats!
 
CFordUNC said:
Do what now?

Jesus's entire message was about justice, equality, and love of others. He was a political figure- hence, his political execution- who used creative acts of civil disobedience- such as flip the tables in the temple- to challenge the status quo and offer an alternative vision. He promoted peaceful disagreement disobedience. He publicly denounced the political and religious leaders of the day.

In what way was Jesus not an activist?
Click to expand...
In the same way he was white.
 
altmin said:
www.independent.co.uk

Trump claims FEMA is getting ‘in the way’ and pitches abolishing it

Trump wants to shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency and let states handle their own disaster needs. ‘I don’t think we should give California anything,’ he said
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

President Donald Trump on Wednesday floated abolishing the federal agency charged with the response to all kinds of natural disasters and other emergencies across the nation, and leave the task of responding to emergencies up to individual state governments instead.
Click to expand...
Well this puts all those people complaining (without basis) about FEMA’s inadequate response in WNC in a difficult position.

“FEMA’s not doing enough? We’ll just get rid of the whole thing!”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top