Null



NolaAuTiger

Verified Member
  • Content count

    172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Sterling

About NolaAuTiger

  • Rank
    Trainer
  1. Moore or Jones?

    So who came first in the three-fifths compromise? How do you reconcile your reasoning? You can't. There's substantively no difference.
  2. Moore or Jones?

    Forgotten what, Tex? Unproven allegations?
  3. Homer, it is important to remember that many times, the media implies that people in positions such a Trump are held to a simple negligence standard of an everyday prudent person - i.e., what he knew or didn't know. However, that is not the standard legally, and thus should not be standard in their reporting. Trump's ventures are within an inherently risky profession. To paint a picture that he is, or even could be at fault for having business ties with bad apples is truly misleading. It's not that we don't have substantive arguments against this report (we've already made some), it's that - in this case - substantivity is in the eye of the beholder and the beholder is Homer. I know, I'm so pathetic because I don't agree with you. After all, that's extreme liberal logic - "If you don't agree with us, it's because you're pathetic." Great argument.
  4. Or either Homer is so separated from big corporate business, that he doesn't know how it operates. You're right, hundreds of millions of dollars - highly regulated by federal law. Numerous players. Any publicly traded players at play? Hello Securities Exchange Commission. Also, numerous deals at once. If you expect to punish the prez/ceo of company for failing to keep track of where every dollar came from, that is unduly putative. And what about the shield of liability? Now we have to talk about business formations. And so on and so on.
  5. Yes definitely. You're so wise. Your insight is so profound and viable. We should all strive to be more like Homer. Trump should be locked up. Even though there's no proof of criminal conduct, he should be locked up. And even though I'm not a lawyer and have no clue how justice operates, I'm right just because.
  6. Says this article. Talking out of my ass? You even asked Salty, "how do you know Trump hasn't committed a crime?" This just shows that you lack a fundamental understanding of how justice works. The question is, "how do you know Trump committed a crime?" - which you do not know. I don't have to articulate why I don't think he committed a crime, simply because it hasn't been shown that he did. You want to see him fail so badly, but yet strike out every time. BOP, presumptively, is to prove the crime, not to disprove it. Go take your meds. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/17/trump-ocean-club-panama-money-laundering-reports
  7. Thank goodness justice doesn't work as Homie would have it
  8. There is no evidence that the Trump Organization or members of the Trump family broke the law or knew of the criminal backgrounds of some of the tower’s brokers, buyers and investors. Trump lent his name but did not exert management control over the tower’s construction and was under no direct legal obligation to conduct due diligence on other people involved.
  9. I think its a crappy article, but give credit where credit is due. Homie, you exceed the article itself
  10. See, that's my point. I'm sure you'll go back and edit your post now - but this shows that you've already taken as true that which the article itself qualified as "may." What does this "pattern of doing business with money launderers" even mean?
  11. Bammer Lookalikes!

  12. I'm suggesting it contains useless information that's irrelevant and representative of a failure to smear our President. What's the point of the article? Is Trump a criminal? What are you attempting to prove?
  13. Namely that many of your sources are saturated with "mays" and speculation. You did miss it - because anything that's anti-Trump, you take as absolute truth. He could cure Cancer and you would complain about researcher's job loss.
  14. Moore or Jones?

    I already did.