• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Bleed you out' like a pig: Feds bust man for threatening Trump whistleblower lawyer

Paradoxical said:
That's different and you know this. She was a Democrat. They are immune from prosecution as we've seen with no prosecution of Hillary, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, McCabe, Comey, et al. As we all know, only Republicans can be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

I am seeing a pattern with Democrats & speech...

They seem MUCH more outraged/punitive when one of their pets is the subject of the kind of speech favored by many in the era of the FFs.

Washington's head in a guillotine & all that.

This was PRECISELY the speech for which protection was elucidated in the Bill of Rights.

:shrug:
 
It's like the 1950s all over again.
 
Would anybody really be surprised to find out that posters (the extreme ones) on political message boards across the US are some of these people making these threats?
 
Royal PITA said:
Thank you for tacitly admitting it was a death threat since you are obviously smart enough to not post "We will hunt you down and bleed you out like the pigs you are" against anyone on this forum. You and I both know it's a death threat and that anyone who posts such a thing against another member would be banned.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous/irrelevant position. Ditto.
 
3leftsdoo said:
I am seeing a pattern with Democrats & speech...

They seem MUCH more outraged/punitive when one of their pets is the subject of the kind of speech favored by many in the era of the FFs.

Washington's head in a guillotine & all that.

This was PRECISELY the speech for which protection was elucidated in the Bill of Rights.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

I bet if we went back to the postings here when that alleged comedienne held the bloody severed head of Trump, you wouldn't find ONE post of protest by these far left radicals who post here (under the guise of "progressive, Libertarian". We would find the postings around that event to be filled with cricket droppings.

I am against anyone threatening the life of another online, even if it is Mark Zaid.
 
3leftsdoo said:
I am seeing a pattern with Democrats & speech...

They seem MUCH more outraged/punitive when one of their pets is the subject of the kind of speech favored by many in the era of the FFs.
Click to expand...


Confirmation bias is the "pattern" you "see". But keep trying to convince yourself.
 
Paradoxical said:
I bet if we went back to the postings here when that alleged comedienne held the bloody severed head of Trump, you wouldn't find ONE post of protest by these far left radicals who post here (under the guise of "progressive, Libertarian". We would find the postings around that event to be filled with cricket droppings.

I am against anyone threatening the life of another online, even if it is Mark Zaid.
Click to expand...

It seems more likely than not.

I understand that that the comments were made in an email; whether they constitute a death threat is unclear.

What is clear is that the arrest of the individual was gross governmental overreach, as is imprisoning people for thought/wordcrime.

Speaking of the era of King George...

:hm
 
3leftsdoo said:
Ridiculous/irrelevant position. Ditto.
Click to expand...

Since you are repeating yourself, so will I:

"Thank you for tacitly admitting it was a death threat since you are obviously smart enough to not post "We will hunt you down and bleed you out like the pigs you are" against anyone on this forum. You and I both know it's a death threat and that anyone who posts such a thing against another member would be banned."
 
Royal PITA said:
Since you are repeating yourself, so will I:

"Thank you for tacitly admitting it was a death threat since you are obviously smart enough to not post "We will hunt you down and bleed you out like the pigs you are" against anyone on this forum. You and I both know it's a death threat and that anyone who posts such a thing against another member would be banned."
Click to expand...

I'm not repeating myself do much as responding to your repeated fallacious claims as they arise & re-arise.

Your repeated point is ridiculous/irrelevant, and will remain so.

:shrug:
 
3leftsdoo said:
I'm not repeating myself...
Click to expand...
Disagreed as all who care to look can see.

Regardless, the courts have the idiot who made the death threats. I doubt it will go to trail since the idiot will most certainly take a plea deal for a lesser sentence. I suspect he is facing more time than Roger Stone.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (NBC News) 'Bleed you out' like a pig: Feds bust man for threatening Trump whistleblower lawyer

The article is pretty straight-forward:

Trump holds up a picture of his impeachment whistle-blower's lawyer at a rally, inciting the crowd. The next day his supporter delivers a death threat (one of many threats!) to the lawyer. Today, the Trump supporter is indicted.

So now we shall see if Trump comes to his supporter's defense, and if he will pardon him or commute his sentence if found guilty.
Click to expand...

This is BS and you know it.
 
Royal PITA said:
Disagreed as all who care to look can see.

Regardless, the courts have the idiot who made the death threats. I doubt it will go to trail since the idiot will most certainly take a plea deal for a lesser sentence. I suspect he is facing more time than Roger Stone.
Click to expand...

Scurrilously edited. :shrug:

Gross government overreach arising in part from the sleazy maneuvering of a self-serving liberal. :shrug:
 
3leftsdoo said:
Scurrilously edited. :shrug:

Gross government overreach arising in part from the sleazy maneuvering of a self-serving liberal. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Of course you'd claim so. However, the fact remains everyone on this forum can read your posts and my posts so your claims are spurious at best.
 
3leftsdoo said:
^ ^100% USDA silliness; see my earlier comments for clarification.
Click to expand...

Please contact your ISP immediately. Someone is hacking your access to DP and changed your post from its original

"^ ^ clarification see my earlier comments for 100% USDA silliness"​

to something totally unrelated.
 
3leftsdoo said:
A concession may consist of multiple sub-concessions;
Click to expand...

Which is not what you posted, is it?

What you posted was the equivalent of

1 + 1 = 1​

3leftsdoo said:
I'm surprised you're unaware of this. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I am not a mind reader and am only aware of what you intend to mean by what you actually post. Of you actually post dreck, then I am only aware that you have posted dreck and cannot be expected to guess what scintillating logical profundities you were thinking when you posted dreck.

If you want me to comment on your scintillating logical profundities rather than your dreck, might I suggest that you start posting the scintillating logical profundities rather than the dreck.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That is NOT the subject of the thread - is it?

Please learn what argumentum ad hominem actually means.

Did it hit too close to home for you to be comfortable?
Click to expand...

The intention/perception of threat is a significant element.

Someone should. :)

Unacceptable/irrelevant ad hom.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Which is not what you posted, is it?

What you posted was the equivalent of

1 + 1 = 1​

I am not a mind reader and am only aware of what you intend to mean by what you actually post. Of you actually post dreck, then I am only aware that you have posted dreck and cannot be expected to guess what scintillating logical profundities you were thinking when you posted dreck.

If you want me to comment on your scintillating logical profundities rather than your dreck, might I suggest that you start posting the scintillating logical profundities rather than the dreck.
Click to expand...

I'll consider that a concession. :)
 
3leftsdoo said:
I am seeing a pattern with Democrats & speech...

They seem MUCH more outraged/punitive when one of their pets is the subject of the kind of speech favored by many in the era of the FFs.

Washington's head in a guillotine & all that.

This was PRECISELY the speech for which protection was elucidated in the Bill of Rights.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Might I remind you of 18 U.S. Code § 875 (c) which was referenced back in Post 21 of this thread?

I know that it is painful to you to be reminded of the actual laws of the United States of America when those actual laws aren't what you would like to think they are, but sometimes if is necessary to use that 6' 2x4 to get their attention.

PS - "Elucidated" does not mean what you appear to think it means.
 
3leftsdoo said:
The intention/perception of threat is a significant element.
Click to expand...

OK, does that mean that you now admit that the email contained something that could be considered to be a threat?

Would it be fair to say that the words in the email just might be considered to be a DEATH threat?

Would it be fair to say that it is the perception of the RECIPIENT of the email that counts towards whether or not they should have treated the email as a threat or not?

3leftsdoo said:
Someone should. :)
Click to expand...

Indeed, and, since I already do, that leaves - whom?

3leftsdoo said:
Unacceptable/irrelevant ad hom.
Click to expand...

Merely asking for information. After all, it is my intent and perception of the words in a post (or an email) that actually count not yours - right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom