Yeah the bad faith participation was pretty obvious.
Imagine being "loyal" to a politician. Yikes.
root
joined 1 year ago
Lmao, did you mean realpolitik?
Are you even American?
I just told you what the point is. It has nothing to do with his 2024 campaign, nor should it. Would be pretty fucked up if it did.
The question is whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the letter of the law.
Did they? Or did the available evidence and applicable case law not support sedition charges?
Irrelevant. An impartial grand jury decided he should be charged. It's not about whether it's advantageous to him politically, it's about law and order.
"You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
But why though?
To upset you, personally.
where did you get this picture of me and how did you know what OS I'm running (btw)
Here's a pretty cool site that I think illustrates the original point that they were in decent financial shape
Lmao, I mean, it indisputably was. Objective facts exist. It was a publicly traded company so there is plenty of professional financial analysis available on the subject which you could easily access if you wanted to. Some of it even written at a level you could potentially understand.
Or just continue on wallowing in your own ignorance, whatever.
view more: next ›
The only problem that can't be solved by adding a layer of abstraction - too many layers of abstraction.