Congratulations on your winnings and new tv op.
Yes definitely as a responsible gambler one should also spend their winnings wisely. And talking about wise spending, alot of people have different things they deem to be wise if you would break this news to some people especially a gambling hater they would say you still did not spend the profit from the win wisely.
Most of the time people usually make bigger losses when they try to stake their previous wins for the next bet. Of course gambling is usually based on luck so they may still win but if they lose they would be back to square one with no wins.
A winner of a gambling game should be able to use his winnings wisely, but the problem is that when they win, there will be excessive feelings of joy, and that will trigger them to buy things they don't really need to show people that they now have a lot of money. They become arrogant, feel rich with lots of money, and can buy whatever they want. An attitude like that is unnecessary because it just brags about what they have In fact, it will alienate them from their environment because the people in their environment will not like it. If people who win a lot of money from gambling forget to manage their winnings, they will not be able to enjoy their winnings and will instead spend it in a short time. Some people return to gambling because they hope to win a lot of money again in other gambling games, even though it will not be as easy as they imagine. Perhaps, but for me if I won, I might buy something like a car or house but it's not about to show my winnings, it's about having put my winnings into a good used, sort of a investment as you can provide it to your family specially a good house for your kids to grow up. So I'm not thinking of being arrogant or something, it's just who am I. And I don't think that there is something wrong with buying thing with your winnings. Before I also buy stuff like mobile phones and laptops with my winnings for good used. Who knows, maybe the next time you will not be as lucky to win that kind of money so also take advantage of it and buy your winnings of something that you can get a good result in the future. It kind of goes with the game to show-off when you have earnings - cars, clothes, jewellery,... I would not go as far as a house or the like, that requires a very special type of earnings from gambling, but it is all right to do so unless you spend too much of the earning on these toys and silly things. Make sure you have clear priorities if you have a lucky strike. |
|
|
|
|
Look, dollars are used for drug trafficking, right? Are US dollars to be blamed for whoever decides to use drugs? Same with paedophiles or weapons dealers, they use dollars, but that does not make the dollar a bad thing, it is the use that people make of it what is not right. Gambling is not wrong in itself, it is a pastime and some addictive personalities may just fall into it like they could in other stuff.
|
|
|
|
Anyone here who retired with Gambling winnings ? If not, how much you think is sufficient to retire as Gambling winning ?
They would not be here... they are retired  It is actually possible to retire with gambling winnings but that is either by a stroke of luck - like winning a big lotto such as the "Euromillions" in Europe or one of the big price games out there or... become a professional player of some of the player vs player games such as poker that have well paid tournaments. |
|
|
|
last night's match in the super cup. which brought together the madrid derby between real madrid and atletico madrid actually went exciting and tight in normal time 90 minutes ended with a score of 3-3 this indicates that both teams played openly so as to produce many goals. in extra time alone atletico madrid became sluggish maybe because the goal was broken first and the time limit was also not much so it ended up being 5-3 for real madrid victory
It was one of the best Derby matches at the start of the year. Even though Atletico Madrid lost that match, I still feel they lost with great honor. Because after all, Atletico Madrid has put up very strong resistance which even kept the score level in normal time. Both teams have played very well and were very aggressive from the start. And these two teams really played like they were in a UCL match. Well, this match really wasn't boring from the start to the end. And Atletico Madrid might be able to avenge their defeat in this match in the near future. Because Atletico Madrid will face Real Madrid again in the 16th round of the Copa Del Rey. And I hope this match will be as exciting as the last match. Athletico is so used to loosing with Real Madrid that they probably do not expect a lot from the derby Still, I would not speak in terms of honourability but rather o possibilities to be a recognised rival in the international sphere. I think Athletic is far from being a rival that is taken seriously by others when they are not playing locally and that is more important than a single game. |
|
|
|
So, "left" is like more progressive and into social equality, while "right" is more about limited government and traditional stuff. "Far-left" goes really extreme on change, often with socialist ideas, and "far-right" is super conservative and might be into nationalism.
Learning these political terms can give you a handle on different views, but what really matters is what you personally believe in. You don't have to squeeze into one box. People use labels to talk about politics, but keep in mind, these tags are like big stickers that don't show all the details of what someone really thinks. What's important is you are doing your research and youre not into fake news.
A decent summary. Far-anything tend also to be totalitarian. The problem on this is that is very unlikely that a party can reflect well all your points of view - so you may be in favour of a stronger immigration policy, while not really wanting to cut on subsidies, would like to support Ukraine but not necessarily keep a big government... And to make it more complex, you may not be religious and would rather be socially liberal... or the opposite, but be socially progressist. |
|
|
|
Not a problem! this is actually quite interesting for me
Imagine there is a straight line or a spectrum, let us say that liberalism would be in the middle this signifies balance between the left and the right as we know liberalism values equality of power for both the government and the people hence why it would be the balanced part of our spectrum 50/50 in a way
Now in our right would be the pro-government most of the power is held by the government like i said this is the spectrum so you could be in the right spectrum but this does not mean that all power is held by the government or just one entity however being far-right there would probably be totalitarianism wherein one person just decides everything that is to decide in a country
Now in the left of course would be the complete opposite this would be the anti-government the farther in the left you are, the radical you can consider yourself to be this spectrum holds political theories or values so if one says they are an extreme leftist then they are most likely talking about political ideology that does not really believe in the government’s power
I think that would be a vision from a very narrow perspective (US I am guessing). No, the further you are either right or left, the more likely you are not happy with the form of government, unless your country is a dictatorship of the sign you prefer. The ends touch in this matter - radicalism is about imposition. Usually, moderate left likes a strong, powerful and controlling government that can support wide social programmes and policies. |
|
|
|
I think the example would be right if you would be willing to violently impose your views on others on that topic. You do not need to as probably most people in your country are ok with private property.
Obamacare was not violently imposed nor opponents were classed (not name-called, but classed) as enemies , it is a decision of a democratic majority. If there is a massive abortion ban "imposed" by a majority, you may disagree, but it is not extremism. Note that is imposed on "God's word" - one of the tell tale signs of "not open to discussion", but it is not violently imposed and the enemies are not "to be killed" or sent to "ghettos".
Look for violence or vilification of the opponents, that is usually a must.
The police "violently impose" when they enforce the law. I vote for their being the police to enforce laws, so indirectly I am "violently imposing" my viewpoint here. I would also go to war to violently to impose my country's commitment to democracy, for instance, so we can all vote whether to have Obamacare or make abortion illegal or whatever. My point is simply that "violently imposing your viewpoint" is something everybody does, so it's not very useful to call that "extremism"... That is correct, the state keeps the monopoly of violence as it is imposing a decision or law created by a majority (in participative regimes). You need to see if there are other tell-tale signs of the ones mentioned before: no discussion, imposition, vilification,... Otherwise is simply a society making sure they live by the rules they have choosen, not a minority trying to impose their monolithic views by means of violence. If most people in your country wanted a dictator and you take arms... well, I guess you are defending the right to discuss things... not really extremist. Well, nothing is perfect, but as said, something discussed and voted and applied legally is rarely extremist in my view. |
|
|
|
And be careful when people use the term, "extreme". Trump is not an "extreme Republican", he's the consummate mainstream Republican since he is the leader of the party and almost his entire party supports him. Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney are the "extreme Republicans" today.
You can Ilhan Omar an "extreme Democrat" in some of her stances because she actually is way out of tune with the rest of her party, who have proven this with their votes. Biden, on the other hand, is a mainstream Democrat, and so on.
This is an interesting point. You define what is extreme in relation to the current state of opinion, so Trump will effectively be a mainstream republican. I like working this in a different manner: for me extremism happens when two or three of these are there:a) You are not open for a discussion on the ideas - e.g. they are God given or they are the only truth and anyone saying anything slightly different is wrong "by definition". b) You are willing to impose those ideas, even if it means breaking the consensus, passing over large numbers of people's rights, demoting a rightful government,... c) People opposing are no longer opponents, worthy of respect, but rather "enemies" or "infidels" or "traitors" or ... Under this definition, Trump is not mainstream, is he? You will notice that "extreme right" and "extreme left" are not that different, which is actually what happens in the real world out there. But that definition of "extreme" doesn't tell you what you need to do. And as far as that definition goes, I'll plug in one of my "extreme" beliefs: that we should punish stealing. a) I'm not open to discuss this. If we let thieves go unpunished, we'll have rampant crime, and I don't want that. b) If the majority of Americans suddenly thought stealing was okay, then I would do everything I could to stop that, so.. c) Yes, I call people who think stealing is okay... all kinds of mean things  . Obviously I'm inventing a simplified example here, but I think you get the idea. So for me, "extreme" doesn't actually tell you anything useful, except to point out where somebody sits in the current political spectrum within their political party. You can also try to point at "extreme" policies, which wouldn't be defined on any kind of spectrum, but rather as a measurement of the aggregate change to all Americans (in our case). For instance, Obamacare was "extreme" because it changed pretty much everybody's health care insurance in the US, and just about all Americans have heath care--and the change to people's lives was significant in many cases. On the other side are the Republican crackdowns on abortion, which is a very big change to people's lifestyles and health. You can call both of these policies "extreme" in that sense. With that definition you can grade the two political parties, overall, by the amount of change they each will make to the country, and you can call the one that will pass bigger changes for more people a more "extreme" party. But obviously that gets into a deep partisan discussion... You would then be surprised to know that most thieves actually do go unpunished in most of their doings I think the example would be right if you would be willing to violently impose your views on others on that topic. You do not need to as probably most people in your country are ok with private property. You are probably "open to discussion" in the sense that you can provide a social rationale to prevent theft. Obamacare was not violently imposed nor opponents were classed (not name-called, but classed) as enemies , it is a decision of a democratic majority. If there is a massive abortion ban "imposed" by a majority, you may disagree, but it is not extremism. Note that is imposed on "God's word" - one of the tell tale signs of "not open to discussion", but it is not violently imposed and the enemies are not "to be killed" or sent to "ghettos". In this case, extremists would go to abortion clinics and attack the doctors. That is extremism. Look for violence or vilification of the opponents, that is usually a must. A simple disagreement is not enough. |
|
|
|
Ok, I seriously don't know what any of them actually mean, can anyone explain in simple english? I would love to know which side I'm on. 😉
Thanks for the time, unless of course it could be considered a waste of your time and therefore constituting a ban for me trying to waste your time and other biased BS. 😂
You will most likely find you do not fit exactly in any of these. As far as right and left: - "Right" tends to focus on individual rights, social stability understood as immobility of classes (conservatives) and usually free markets and small states (liberal). - "Left" tends to focus in the social rights, the collective progress and distributing wealth (even if not necessarily by merit). This is the simplest explanation I can come up with. ...
And be careful when people use the term, "extreme". Trump is not an "extreme Republican", he's the consummate mainstream Republican since he is the leader of the party and almost his entire party supports him. Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney are the "extreme Republicans" today.
You can Ilhan Omar an "extreme Democrat" in some of her stances because she actually is way out of tune with the rest of her party, who have proven this with their votes. Biden, on the other hand, is a mainstream Democrat, and so on.
...
This is an interesting point. You define what is extreme in relation to the current state of opinion, so Trump will effectively be a mainstream republican. I like working this in a different manner: for me extremism happens when two or three of these are there:a) You are not open for a discussion on the ideas - e.g. they are God given or they are the only truth and anyone saying anything slightly different is wrong "by definition". b) You are willing to impose those ideas, even if it means breaking the consensus, passing over large numbers of people's rights, demoting a rightful government,... c) People opposing are no longer opponents, worthy of respect, but rather "enemies" or "infidels" or "traitors" or ... Under this definition, Trump is not mainstream, is he? You will notice that "extreme right" and "extreme left" are not that different, which is actually what happens in the real world out there. |
|
|
|
...
Who besides the bankers wants a money system like this? Sure, nations like the apparent profitability of the USD. But cheating like this - which really screws the people more than anybody - also screws the nations. Governments are getting fed up with being screwed like this. The USD will come crashing down when this info is spread far enough that nobody wants to use it Fed fiat (the USD) any longer.
...
dumBAss, it is time to be honest with yourself. You have probably been forecasting and waiting for the dollar to collapse for... how long? decades? Your theory is that it will crash when enough people know something only you know? It may be time for you to start accepting the fact that it may simply not happen in your lifetime. Are you sure you want to be "right" after your death? Meanwhile the B_I_S, which are in no way opposing the US, are hungry for foreign investment and the US is the best placed country to get that from. So, you really like it when people are scammed by money that they trust, right? So, what are you really doing? Are you investing in BRICS just so that you have something to fall back on when the scamming fiat USD collapses? If not, you should be. The fiat USD will go down, soon. ... dumBAss, saying things over and over does not make them real. The BRICS have no alternative currency to the US dollar. Even the Yuan / Remimbi is well away from being acceptable. I know you hate the US and you hate democracy, I know you love dictators like Putin - the world you live in is probably not working for you. You need to re-assess you beliefs and see how they match real facts, not how you feel about things. Are the facts to hard for you to accept? do you need to create an imaginary land in which gravity makes things fly? As for myself, I do not particularly like people being scammed - that's why I think you are a problem in the forum. Do not worry, paxmao. We all know that once Donald Trump wins the presidency of the United States again this year, suddenly the BRICS will decide to disband and abandon all their plans to ever issue their own FIAT, also the United States Dollar will not be threated to lose its status a reserve currency and suddenly no media neither in the right or the left of the political spectrum will again talk about it for at least 4 years. The hegemony and strength of the USD will be guaranteed as soon as the Donald Trump is declared the winner and without even having to issue any executive order to protect their currency. Even BaDecker will recognize the miracle over the FIAT of his country and won't talk about its demise here, because everything will be solved by then. Mark my words.  Great plan! What could go wrong? I just wonder why dumBAss claims to be an US citizen (never proven) yet he makes everything that is possible to undermine the position of the US dollar, promotes Ruzzia and Putin even beyond what Ruzzian official media dare to say. He calls himself "a free man" but is cozy with Xi, Kim, Putin, Orban,.... There is so much stuff going wrong up there in the attic. |
|
|
|
|
Yes the VIP programme is important, the most important thing is what would you consider a VIP because I would only be interested in a more or less mid-tier program, not in a really big-spender only programme. Ideally I would want some special treatment in the sign-on bonus and some cashback if I meet a spending quota per month or per week. So, in essence, cash advantages.
|
|
|
|
If Trump or anybody personally breaks the law, let the punishment fit the crime.
What kind of punishment would fit the crime of retaining government documents that are classified at the highest level that included foreign and domestic nuclear secrets, and then refusing to give them back, defying a subpoena for them, and obstructing an investigation into their whereabouts by lying about them, all violations of the espionage act and committed by a civilian after having their security clearance revoked. Forget it's Trump that did all this. Just in general, what should the punishment be for someone that does this, regardless of any political affiliation. Squirm away. There you go, again. Trump hasn't been adjudicated of any wrongdoing in declassifying government docs. Wake up. Even if he is adjudicated to have done something wrong, he is certain to appeal it. It's not over until it's over. Now, I realize that you are simply asking questions and voicing your opinion in a way that makes it look like you are slandering when you really aren't. Or are you? slandering Trump, I mean? If you want to see what the punishment has been for people giving away government secrets, simply get over to a law library and find info on Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg. Neither you nor I are close enough to the Trump trials to understand the investigation that has gone into them. There is no way to answer your question without knowing the details.  Trump has been effectively indicted of 42 counts regarding the classified documents case. 32 counts of willfully retaining national defense information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))
5 counts of obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
1 count of interfering with a federal investigation (18 U.S.C § 1519)
4 counts of making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)) In your view, if he is guilty, what should be the punishment? This is a very simple question you are being asked... have you got an answer or another excuse? If you ask me, if the Rossembergs were killed by the US government on a simple declaration by Ethel's brother - in fact for nothing proven, then I do not see why Trump, who send people to assault the Capitol and killed several people, should not be given the needle. In June 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for conspiracy to commit espionage under the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917. Members of the communist party, the Rosenbergs were convicted of passing secret information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union in 1945. |
|
|
|
^^^ So far Russia has been holding herself back... limiting herself to an honorable style of fighting. But Ukraine doesn't really want to exist any longer. We can tell by the way that she keeps on antagonizing the Bear. One little word from Putin, and Lukashenko will come down and wipe out Kiev. Ukraine is really asking for a way to stop existing.
...
Nope, Ruzzia is sending anything conventional they have. Anything they are holding back is merely to keep an operational backup in case they are really attacked or because they have claimed certain capabilities (e.g. stealth) which they do not really have but do not want the enemy to know up to what point they do not have it. One little word to uncle Luka and Belorussia and the population of BR would likely revolt. Ruzzia cannot deal with an insurrection in BR, that is why "uncle Luka" is just watching the show. Oh, this is interesting. After capturing a Ruzzian tank, this Ukrainian soldier called the technical service to complain about the quality. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/f5JHzEmlMdU?feature=share |
|
|
|
...
Who besides the bankers wants a money system like this? Sure, nations like the apparent profitability of the USD. But cheating like this - which really screws the people more than anybody - also screws the nations. Governments are getting fed up with being screwed like this. The USD will come crashing down when this info is spread far enough that nobody wants to use it Fed fiat (the USD) any longer.
...
dumBAss, it is time to be honest with yourself. You have probably been forecasting and waiting for the dollar to collapse for... how long? decades? Your theory is that it will crash when enough people know something only you know? It may be time for you to start accepting the fact that it may simply not happen in your lifetime. Are you sure you want to be "right" after your death? Meanwhile the B_I_S, which are in no way opposing the US, are hungry for foreign investment and the US is the best placed country to get that from. So, you really like it when people are scammed by money that they trust, right? So, what are you really doing? Are you investing in BRICS just so that you have something to fall back on when the scamming fiat USD collapses? If not, you should be. The fiat USD will go down, soon. ... dumBAss, saying things over and over does not make them real. The BRICS have no alternative currency to the US dollar. Even the Yuan / Remimbi is well away from being acceptable. I know you hate the US and you hate democracy, I know you love dictators like Putin - the world you live in is probably not working for you. You need to re-assess you beliefs and see how they match real facts, not how you feel about things. Are the facts to hard for you to accept? do you need to create an imaginary land in which gravity makes things fly? As for myself, I do not particularly like people being scammed - that's why I think you are a problem in the forum. |
|
|
|
...
Who besides the bankers wants a money system like this? Sure, nations like the apparent profitability of the USD. But cheating like this - which really screws the people more than anybody - also screws the nations. Governments are getting fed up with being screwed like this. The USD will come crashing down when this info is spread far enough that nobody wants to use it Fed fiat (the USD) any longer.
...
dumBAss, it is time to be honest with yourself. You have probably been forecasting and waiting for the dollar to collapse for... how long? decades? Your theory is that it will crash when enough people know something only you know? It may be time for you to start accepting the fact that it may simply not happen in your lifetime. Are you sure you want to be "right" after your death? Meanwhile the B_I_S, which are in no way opposing the US, are hungry for foreign investment and the US is the best placed country to get that from. |
|
|
|
In my opinion, the comparison between online and offline casinos is that currently more people are interested in online casinos, because of the easy access so many people can do it, also with online casinos now they can do it wherever they want, different from offline casinos. or physical casinos, when they want to gamble they have to go to where the offline casino is, and this will of course take time, so for now, in my opinion, the advantages of online casinos dominate among the public. In comparison between age group, gender, and online gambling, there are more oldies (age 50 -90) who gamble offline since it is what they are already used to and considering that most of them not be able to use new digital technologies . The gen-zs and millennials in the hand are those who grew up in the era of digital technology. Therefore online gambling - casinos and sport book were invented and adapted during their time. These are the population of the public that use more than one online casinos. It is interesting the grouping you are making here LOL... people aged 50 to 90 are completely different. My guess is that you are a young peson, but people in their 50s were actually the generation using the first personal computers when around 15 years old, an those at 60 caught the wave at work without much problem. I have seen people over 75 having some issues with the "new technologies" which are frankly much user-friendly than before. |
|
|
|
Fireworks have been in Crimea this time, 4 military locations have been hit in the peninsula, shall this serve as a simple statement of this no longer being a territory that Ruzzia can use safely. Ukraine can hit Crimea anywhere, anytime and it seems it has HUMINT all over and knows what is happening where, which ships is doing what, who is where. There are rumours of Gerasimov being in the barracks that were hit in the air base at Hyrshyne. If this is confirmed, it would be a clear sign to those ordering the shelling of civilian infrastructure and ordering all short of really nasty Orc stuff in occupied Ukraine. 💥 The occupiers in Crimea lost BC warehouses and "blinded" several radars
👉 The Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine informs: on January 4, 2024, a complex special operation was carried out on the territory of the temporarily occupied Crimea.
🤝 The targets of the attack, carried out by soldiers of the GUR of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and the Air Force of the Armed Forces together with the forces of the defense sector of the state, were the Russian radar positions at the airfield in Saki and an ammunition depot near the settlement of Grishine.
🎯 Space intelligence data confirm the successful fire damage to the BC warehouse of the Russian invaders in Hryshyn.
✔️ Information on other losses of terrorist Russia in the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is being clarified. |
|
|
|
In his speech, Trump seemed to be making excuses for his 2024 loss already. A lot of hate in that person.
Not only hate, he has something more dangerous within him himself and that is a complete disregard for the future of the politics in the United States and democracy in that country. If he cared at least a bit, then he would have realized he is undermining the trust people have on elections and that may continue to hurt the country, even after he steps down his political career, but no. Besides of that, I would have not expected Trump to start to make excuses for the posibility of him being defeated, because he seems to have a good chance to actually get his second term in the White House. It makes me wonder whether he actually believes he could lose because he won't have the support of the moderates or he just wants to further fearmonger his followers into the election fraud theories. Regardless of it, he has said a little bit of everything in his speeches, being amount the worst the way he mocked the husband of Nancy Pelosi after being brutally attacked with the hammer. Not the kind of stuff one is supposed to find in serious politics, to be honest. As said, does any of this not match the main characteristics of a Narcissistic Personality disorder? I can break the law because it is me, I can threaten and harass my political opponents (please not that Nacy Pelosi's husband, in his 80s, was attacked at his own home!) and anyone criticising is (underline those applicable: deep-state, crooked, Chinesse, anti-USA, wrong, corrupted, democrat,...) The law has to be changed to favour me, ... If something goes wrong is never my fault is because (deep-state, democrats, judges, ...) are against me. I mean ... textbook + a bit of other diagnosable mental health issues in the pot. The type of personality that attracts moths like dumBAss. On the moderate support, look, the problem is not Trump, the problem is that Republicans have been kidnapped by trump for several years and unfortunately candidates not endorsed by his have mostly lost. There is no "moderation" there is simply desire to grab the Presidency to ban abortion, try to stop migration flows and go on with the protectionist + low tax agenda. On the other hand, I see Trump as a high-risk candidate. I wonder why the donors have not chosen another horse already - no fan of conspiracies, but there are parts missing in the puzzle. |
|
|
|
In his speech, Trump seemed to be making excuses for his 2024 loss already. A lot of hate in that person.
Some of us still remember that he was saying that he would not accept any result in the previous elections other than a win. And accept he did not indeed. It is a textbook example of a Narcissist Personality disorder: unable to accept critic, will go into aggression mode towards anyone challenging him. Everything he does is "the biggest, the greatest, the what-ever-est of all times". When he fails, breaks the law or is in trouble, it is not ever because he fuck*ed up, it is because "XYZ excuse". He is not making a excuse, he is a miserable excuse from implanted hair to polished thumbnail. Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence, they are not sure of their self-worth and are easily upset by the slightest criticism.
A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial matters. People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they're not given the special favors or admiration that they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships troubled and unfulfilling, and other people may not enjoy being around them. The jury did this... Bundy Brothers Acquitted in Takeover of Oregon Wildlife Refuge - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Bundy+Brothers+Acquitted+in+Takeover+of+Oregon+Wildlife+Refuge&ia=web.So, for whatever laws the Bundy brothers and their accomplices broke, the Jury struck these laws down in their cases. This does not mean that the next time they did it, that the juries would act the same way. It also does not mean that the juries would act the same way for other people. What it shows is that here is a start towards a certain precedent. If more juries acted this way, government might change the laws or repeal them. If you get into reading American case law, you will find that juries have done this kind of thing all over the place... including reversing 'debts' owed so that the other side owed the money. Actually these laws still exist: "conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States"; one count of "conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer"; four counts of "using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence"; two counts of "assault on a federal officer"; two counts of "threatening a federal law enforcement officer"; three counts of "obstruction of the due administration of justice"; two counts of "interference with interstate commerce by extortion"; and one count of "interstate travel in aid of extortion." And the judge dismissed the charges before the jury even began deliberations. Try again. One single example of a law being struck down by a jury. You're a rather strange one, TS. You know that juries rule in court, yet you try to hide that you know. Why? Are you an attorney who realizes that if people found out about it, you just might lose a bunch of clients? Or are you in a position where you have to play devil's advocate because of what your 'companions' might think of you? Anyway, the court cases are open to anybody who wants to go and look at them. There are many law libraries that have loads of court cases where juries made the decisions in ways they wanted, rather than what the judge wanted. Just answer dumBAss, you do not have any example of any law being struck down by a jury. He is not strange, he is asking for a proof you cannot provide because you have lied. The sad truth is that you want Trump to be judged by a jury and then having the Trump mobsters threatening, and bullying the judge, the jury and possibly even the relator and the Trump controlled media ranting over the judge so that it becomes impossible to have a trial and the people are afraid of giving a honest guilty verdict. Now why in the world do you want me to show you some court cases? You wouldn't believe them anyway, just like you don't seem to believe much of anything I say. I DID show you the Bundy brothers' case. But you obviously don't believe it. Do your own research. Everything you say is insignificant. Why? Because you sit over there, and you don't know how things work in America. ... dumBAss, provide any proof that you are actually American (meaning an US citizen) or shut up about the topic, because your line of posting seems pretty much what a Chinese troll would be saying to weaken and divide the US. Again, you are not answering because you are lying. Juries do not "strike down laws" and you barely can tell your thumb from your teeth, so do not bother saying that "others do not understand" - It is just way out of your personal possibilities. Meanwhile, Trump's trials progress and March & April are going to be busy dates for Trump and likely for the supreme court. Until now, no judge has disputed the fact that Trump engaged in insurrection. |
|
|
|
The jury did this... Bundy Brothers Acquitted in Takeover of Oregon Wildlife Refuge - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Bundy+Brothers+Acquitted+in+Takeover+of+Oregon+Wildlife+Refuge&ia=web.So, for whatever laws the Bundy brothers and their accomplices broke, the Jury struck these laws down in their cases. This does not mean that the next time they did it, that the juries would act the same way. It also does not mean that the juries would act the same way for other people. What it shows is that here is a start towards a certain precedent. If more juries acted this way, government might change the laws or repeal them. If you get into reading American case law, you will find that juries have done this kind of thing all over the place... including reversing 'debts' owed so that the other side owed the money. Actually these laws still exist: "conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States"; one count of "conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer"; four counts of "using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence"; two counts of "assault on a federal officer"; two counts of "threatening a federal law enforcement officer"; three counts of "obstruction of the due administration of justice"; two counts of "interference with interstate commerce by extortion"; and one count of "interstate travel in aid of extortion." And the judge dismissed the charges before the jury even began deliberations. Try again. One single example of a law being struck down by a jury. You're a rather strange one, TS. You know that juries rule in court, yet you try to hide that you know. Why? Are you an attorney who realizes that if people found out about it, you just might lose a bunch of clients? Or are you in a position where you have to play devil's advocate because of what your 'companions' might think of you? Anyway, the court cases are open to anybody who wants to go and look at them. There are many law libraries that have loads of court cases where juries made the decisions in ways they wanted, rather than what the judge wanted. Just answer dumBAss, you do not have any example of any law being struck down by a jury. He is not strange, he is asking for a proof you cannot provide because you have lied. The sad truth is that you want Trump to be judged by a jury and then having the Trump mobsters threatening, and bullying the judge, the jury and possibly even the relator and the Trump controlled media ranting over the judge so that it becomes impossible to have a trial and the people are afraid of giving a honest guilty verdict. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
