Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Oprah Winfrey for President      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 76
Oprah Winfrey for PresidentPage 4 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
If he gives it to them " first," Republicans lose both houses in November.

Why not elect Dems?
 LLove2LaughToo
Joined: 10/25/2017
Msg: 77
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 4:48:20 AM

Were you not watching yesterday.
President Trump was brilliant and the meeting was exceptional.


This is not what his right-wing supporters are saying about the King of Flip Flops.


ANN COULTER TURNS ON PRESIDENT TRUMP OVER ‘DACA LOVEFEST’ MEETING

Ann Coulter, conservative commentator and consistent supporter of President Donald Trump, has turned on the president after his bipartisan meeting on Tuesday to discuss the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and other immigration policies.

On Tuesday a judge blocked Trump's September decision to end the program, which followed a meeting the president held with Republicans and Democrats to discuss immigration policy.

That evening, Coulter posted a series of angry tweets that accused Trump of conducting the “DACA lovefest” meeting to counter negative press from the recently released Michael Wolff book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.

“Trump, flanked by Dems & open-borders GOPS, announces plan for 100% open-ended amnesty (per courts),” Coulter, the author of In Trump We Trust, shared on Twitter, before adding, ““But don’t worry! There will be ‘border security’! (Political euphemism for: You’re not getting wall.)”

Speaking to Lou Dobbs on FOX Business, Coulter said that the meeting marked “the lowest day in the Trump presidency.”

Coulter predicted that Trump's recent flip-flopping on his policies would likely alienate his right-wing supporters who fueled his political surge into presidency.

http://www.newsweek.com/ann-coulter-trump-daca-lovefest-meeting-776474
 benartflick
Joined: 3/8/2012
Msg: 78
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 5:00:08 AM

".you are fuking ahole who actually thinks he knows more about Federal Criminal Law than a Federal Prosecutor who has trained in the field for years.. and is going to argue with the prosecutor about what the law means. Too funny. And by the way ahole...jurors don't decide what the law is... the law is as instructed to them..."


Ya believe an elderly adult is an 'ahole' for not be gullible enough to believe a 'coin flip' is Probable Cause and an unloaded gun locked in a safe in another room is legally considered being used during the course of a drug sale.

Since you're naive enough to believe that nonsense, anyone who thinks otherwise gotta be stupid and an ahole - right?

The prosecutor was wrong. No doubt! A flip of a coin is NEVER more than a 50% chance of coming up heads or tails. No matter how many times you toss it. The evidence of guilt gotta be greater than 50% to indict. The judge told us that (minutes prior to the prosecutor's absurd example) and it's clearly written in the Juror's instruction guide. It's so simple anyone smarter than you could understand.

Thank God there are very few people like you around. I can't recall EVER running into anyone as dumb as you appear to be. Of course I ran into a few rude adults almost as bad as you. Seems like most (if not all) were Jewish. A fluke?

The nonsense about using a gun locked in a safe during a drug sale is contradicted in the written law. All ya had to do was look it up before calling me an 'ahole' for not believing that irrationality.

It's clear you believe jurors should rubber stamp any indictment brought in front of them because the prosecutors know the law and jurors don't. Then isn't having a Grand Jury a waste of time and tax dollars? Understand that simple question? Please share your thoughts?

Essentially why bother having juries? The prosecutors and judges know the law. They wouldn't be prosecuting innocent Americans without just cause - right?

Again, as in most of your postings, you proved beyond any doubt what a stupid troll you actually are. Instead of discussing what I see as a serious problem in a courthouse in Florida, you mindlessly attack me with childish insults without any justification other than your opinion.

It's an automatic 5 years in federal prison for using a gun during the course of a drug sale. If that prosecutor was right (he wasn't), you believe our lawmakers considered 5 years in prison for selling 20 bucks worth of pot in a living room 'justice' if there's an unloaded handgun locked in a safe in another room? You really believe that? It's very sad that you're not the only one stupid enough to believe that lunacy.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 79
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 6:09:40 AM
So, there's a new tax plan, the IRS doesn't have the amount of employees or budget to get it all straightened out yet, their help line is full of people calling to ask what they need to do for first quarter filing...and you think a shutdown is going to make things better.

Yeah, Chump really knocked it out of the park in that meeting:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-contradicts-self-repeatedly-in-immigration-meeting/ar-BBIaLNv?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

But its a good example of what people think is good. Its not that they are intending to lie, per se, they just have different definitions. Meanwhile...the Dems don't have to do much to win things besides get out of the way and let the GOP shoot itself in the foot--two Trumpians are going to fight for Flake's seat:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arpaios-decision-to-run-shakes-up-senate-race-in-arizona/ar-BBIby9t?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 80
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 6:17:23 AM
dee says



It is not our job to take in the down trodden of the world (no matter what a gift from France says) anymore than it is your job to let the homeless and hungry live in your home, apartment or retirement facility room.
Or are you doing that now, leftists?


Then why do we still have Kosovo refugees here since 1999?
Last i checked the war there has long since been over and the country is back on its feet!
Or could it be because they are white?



If he gives it to them " first," Republicans lose both houses in November.


yep...but we have to find a way to get it, without paying 18 Billion for a useless wall

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
spy/zero/cobster



Were you not watching yesterday.


so were many of the Pubs, and they didn't look happy about what he said


President Trump was brilliant and the meeting was exceptional.


sure, if you enjoy being jurked-off by Trump


President Trump promised that compromise is available.


Trump's promises are taken with a grain of salt..as he has LIED and reversed on so many "promises" that everyone has lost count


Remember when the Dems (Pelosi and Schumer) backed out of a meeting last year and the optics of their empty seats?


Best thing they could have done


Why do you think the Dems took their seats this time and not last time?


Because they wanna make sure the public will see that they are not the reason for a gov't shut down.


The DEMS will get a form of DACA and the Repubs will get a form of the Wall.


except for the fact that many conservative Pubs don't want DACA....and few of them are stupid enough to spend 18 billion for a useless wall on an election year


Will Dems shut the Gov down over a wall?


except that the GOP will be the ones initiating a shut down....not the DEms; or have you forgoten who is in power.


Dems want DACA President Trump said no problem lets do a deal in fact we will give it to you first but then we want this.


no Dem will vote for a wall....that is political suicide for them


So the deal is there but will the party of resistance stand in the way and stop DACA and border security?


They are no more "resistant" then the GOP was towards the Blackman..........one good turn deserves another


Goodbye Wolf book!
Goodbye Bannon story!


you wish!
 kollata
Joined: 8/30/2017
Msg: 81
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 8:00:40 AM
You are right Flick about this one thing...probable cause does not equal 50-50, which is why you are lying about the prosecutor explaining your role. He undoubtedly used the flipping a coin analogy to explain probabilities...you were just too dumb to get it and understand what he was saying.

What do we know and what can we assume about you Flick...you have no real education...likely not even a high school degree. You've been a working man all of your life in the maritime industy. You are one of those guys with a chip on his shoulder who is angry with himself because of his lack of education, working class status, and so you try to bring everybody else down to your level. Whoever it is...lawyers, doctors, law enforcement officers, museum directors, politician's sons. You, with your limited intellect, education and experience..are their betters...smarter than they are in your own reality.

Arguing with you about things like law is like arguing with a child. The concepts are simply too far over your head. You don't even understand what or why you don't understand. So perhaps I should be ashamed of myself for taking you on. I'm pretty sure that's why the Fed judge did not sanction you. With your child like mind, how could you be blamed for not getting it. In this case, your limited intellect worked in your favor. Understanding legal concepts and nuances is easy for somebody trained and practiced in the law. You don't have that luxury....so naturally you read something and now you know more than a Federal Prosecutor in the criminal law arena. Could it be any sadder than this?

I know you think you are smarter than everyone else Flick... for example, I know you never understood you were not entitled to collect overtime for overtime you never worked and so held it against your attorney in your workers comp claim. But he was right and you were wrong. I strongly suggest you of all people need to rely on the experts. God knows you need somebody advising you who really understands things.
 kollata
Joined: 8/30/2017
Msg: 82
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 8:06:58 AM
""""It is not our job to take in the down trodden of the world (no matter what a gift from France says) anymore than it is your job to let the homeless and hungry live in your home, apartment or retirement facility room.
Or are you doing that now, leftists?"""

When was Dee appointed to decide what our "job" was? How does a person become like Dee..devoid of any sense of justice or compassion...even for her own people? I wonder what in her background turned her in to the person she is today?
 _babblefish
Joined: 9/23/2011
Msg: 83
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 8:11:27 AM
#69 and #72 the sycophant

you toss around the presidency like it's a bauble between billionaires, your decadent phase makes you done, america you're hanging by a thread


Seth MacFarlane said it best:

"Oprah is beyond doubt a magnificent orator. But the idea of a reality show star running against a talk
show host is troublingly dystopian. We don't want to create a world where dedicated public service careers
become undesirable and impractical in the face of raw celebrity."
 Whisky_River
Joined: 10/14/2017
Msg: 84
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 8:27:36 AM

Happy DACA Day!

Yes...I think they're celebrating....too.

Poor Trump..he tries so hard at his dedicated public service job...doesn't he?
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 8:38:39 AM
“President Trump was brilliant and the meeting was exceptional.”

Even the GOP members attending have admitted Trump contradicted himself numerous times and was highly confusing. It’s why hardcore conservatives are up in arms about it right now:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservatives-alarmed-trump-apos-comprehensive-021655530.html

I’m not necessarily suggesting Trump even said what they think he said or for that matter what anybody thinks he said. I’m saying, Trump was not “brilliant” nor the meeting “exceptional,” and I have no idea why Hannity and Ingraham were trying to snow their viewers into believing such, other than the fact that they, like KJ, are the ultimate Trump apologists and head cheerleaders and everything he touches turns to gold in their eyes, and apparently yours. The one thing good people should be able to agree on when it comes to Trump (and I’ve even seen Head Cheerleader admit it before) is that his communication skills lack something to be desired, and that hour long incoherent ramble session was the ultimate proof of that. NewYorker chalks it up to “ineloquence,” but that’s a seriously polite way of saying “nonsensical balderdash.” Obviously this was an attempted exercise by his staff in making him seem like a “stable genius” in response to the “Fire and Fury” dustup, but it failed spectacularly in the eyes of almost anyone that doesn’t worship him. Sanders couldn’t even transcribe what he meant and now conservatives are in full panic that “amnesty” might be on the table because he said exactly that multiple times. And then backtracked.

I’m going to go ahead and say it: this is because Trump is an idiot. Not a stable genius. A straight up idiot. For anyone that thinks otherwise, I refer you to the story about the emperor having no clothes.

I’m not going to get into benartflick’s personal vendetta against our state’s judges. No good can come from that.

“If they feel that way about sugar, why don't they outlaw tobacco while they're at it. People have a right to make their own choices.”

Don’t people also have the right not to have to pay for other people’s choices? I mean, isn’t that why conservatives don’t want public funding for abortions? Why should the rest of us have to pay for smokers’ lung cancer treatments and obese people’s heart bypasses? I look at sugar and tobacco taxes the same way I look at gas taxes and tolls: the people who use it the most should contribute the most to it. So long as soda taxes are being used for indignant health care, how is that not a win-win?

“The DEMS will get a form of DACA and the Repubs will get a form of the Wall.”

Most Republicans (politicians and regular Joes alike) do not want “The Wall,” unless you’re talking about Pink Floyd’s outstanding album. The only ones that want a wall are the bigoted **stards screaming the loudest so it seems like they have outsized representation within not only the Republican Party but the United States. Most Republicans believe “The Wall” is a $20B deficit-enhancing boondoggle and better border security is best brought about by technology and possibly increased personnel. Democrats are saving the GOP from itself by refusing to give ground on “The Wall” in these supposed negotiations.

I wouldn’t be surprised if absolutely nothing came of all this and the can ends up being kicked further down the road, especially in light of the latest court ruling, because that gives the GOP perhaps enough cover not to do anything about DACA until the election.

“If he gives it to them ‘ first,’ Republicans lose both houses in November.”

This is the biggest lie that’s been coming out of the GOP lately. That somehow, NOT enacting an agenda that nearly 2/3rds of the country is OPPOSED to will lead to the GOP losing both Houses. I certainly understand why you guys are saying it (after you lose both houses, it will be a convenient but highly inaccurate excuse and it's good for whipping up "the base" to get something done in the short term), but surely you realize it is a complete contradiction to common sense and all possible logic. First of all, find me the hardcore conservative Republican who is going to vote for a Democrat to punish the GOP for not passing certain legislation. Hell, find me the moderate independent who is going to vote for a Democrat because his GOP representative wasn’t conservative enough. If Republicans lose both houses in November, it’s going to be mostly because of what they DID, not what they didn’t do... with one obvious exception: most of them got elected in November 2016 promising to be a check to whoever the president was since both were extremely unpopular, and yet they have been a rubber stamp and protector of the president instead of a check on his power. And the more unpopular Trump has become, the more important that promise has become – it’s at this point far more important than voting for a tax bill the majority of the population disliked, voting for a health care repeal the majority of the population didn’t want or voting to prevent the deportation of 800,000 innocent kids/young adults that the majority of the population didn’t want to happen. You keep telling Congress to do jobs the majority of people do not want them to do or they will lose their jobs if they don’t do these unpopular things. With Bannon gone from the scene, I don’t know how primarying from the right is really going to work out, but it doesn’t matter: losing the general election is pretty inevitable regardless of who the GOP candidate is if all of them are pledging to do things (or have already done things) that are unpopular with the overall general electorate. Contrary to your own popular belief, the entire country does not think the way you do.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 86
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 10:04:31 AM
I forgot.

We are dealing with the literal.


They will not vote at all. Dems wiil. Dems win.

If you take your child to rob a bank, even if you hid the money and it is discovered between 2007 and 2012, the child doesn't get to keep the money.

Daca began as just children and was expanded to parents. Where does it stop?

Stop it now.

Next group packing and sneaking over with kids will be on its,way.

Pushover Americans will eventually let them stay.

How the "majority" thinks is. . . interesting but that is about it.

-------------------
And, once,again, dog whistle for the ad hominem response and nothing substantive from the envious person below.

Yawn.

I will have to just skip over its posts.

Again.
 kollata
Joined: 8/30/2017
Msg: 87
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 10:10:30 AM
"""If you take your child to rob a bank, even if you hid the money and it is discovered between 2007 and 2012, the child doesn't get to keep the money."""

Roflmao...is this supposed to be some sort of Daca analogy. You have the limited intellect of Flick...stuff so easily flies over his head too.
 Tootiefrutie1
Joined: 12/8/2015
Msg: 88
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 10:54:22 AM
It appears that Judge Alsup utilized a long history of Republican legislation and executive action to justify preliminary injunction of the current administrations attempt to halt DACA:

"DACA grew out of a long agency history of discretionary relief programs. In 1956, the
Eisenhower Administration paroled roughly one thousand foreign-born orphans who had been
adopted by American citizens but were precluded from entering the United States because of
statutory quotas. That same administration later granted parole to tens of thousands of
Hungarian refugees after the unsuccessful Hungarian revolution. Both programs flowed from
presidential statements, and the programs later ended (in 1959 and 1958, respectively) when
Congress passed laws enabling the paroled individuals to become lawful permanent residents
(App. 1602–03, 1948–57; AR 33).2
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan instituted the Family Fairness Program, a nonstatutory
program that provided extended voluntary departure to children whose parents were in
the process of legalizing their immigration status under the Immigration Reform and Control Act
of 1986. President George H.W. Bush extended the non-statutory program in 1990 to cover
spouses of such legalized aliens, and the program ultimately provided immigration relief to
approximately 1.5 million people. The need for the program ended with the passage of the
Immigration Act of 1990 (App. 1607, 1612–13, 1703).
On at least four occasions prior to the creation of DACA, immigration officials have
extended deferred action programs to certain classes of aliens, none of which programs was
expressly authorized by statute:
• In 1997, INS established a deferred action program for individuals
self-petitioning for relief under the Violence Against Women Act of
1994. This program is still in place today. As originally enacted, the
Act did not mention deferred action, but instead provided a pathway
to lawful permanent residency. Deferred action allowed applicants
to remain in the country pending a decision on their applications.

Congress later expanded the deferred action program in the 2000
VAWA reauthorization legislation (App. at 1640–46).
• In 2002 and 2003, INS issued memoranda instructing officers to make
deferred action assessments for T visa applicants (victims of human
trafficking) and U visa applicants (victims of crimes such as domestic
violence) (App. 1650–58). These programs have since been codified in
regulations promulgated by INS and DHS. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.11(k)(1),
(k)(4), (m)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(d)(2).
• After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, USCIS announced a deferred action
program for certain foreign students (F-1 visa holders) who, because of
the hurricane, could not satisfy the requirements of their student visas.
In announcing the program, USCIS stated that “[t]he interim relief
[would] remain in effect until February 1, 2006” (App. 1661–62).
• In 2009, to fill a gap under the law, USCIS established a deferred
action program for widowed spouses who had been married to United
States citizens for less than two years. Congress later eliminated the
statutory requirement that an alien be married to a United States citizen
for at least two years at the time of the citizen’s death to retain
eligibility for lawful immigration status, and USCIS accordingly
withdrew the deferred action program as “obsolete” (App. 1664–82).
In sum, by the time DACA arrived in 2012, deferred action programs had become a
well-accepted feature of the executive’s enforcement of our immigration laws, recognized as
such by Congress and the Supreme Court. "
 introvertedkinkster
Joined: 11/29/2017
Msg: 89
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 7:32:21 PM
2016
Being a billionare TV star doesn't qualify in being president.

2018
Oprah for president!

Gotta larf at lefties.
 kollata
Joined: 8/30/2017
Msg: 90
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 8:30:00 PM
You are comparing somebody intelligent with class and dignity to Donald Trump? That's what's laughable.

 forumslady
Joined: 12/7/2016
Msg: 91
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 10:01:29 PM
Dragonbytes- Until she says so herself, I don't think she will run.
She's been asked before and always said no.
Besides, haven't we learned a lesson with the train wreck that is the Trump presidency?!
Oprah's fame/celebrity status should not get her in the white house, anymore than it should have Trump!
 NewYorker58
Joined: 6/11/2013
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 10:58:52 PM
This is why Oprah won't run. She doesn't want to be hated by half of the country
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 93
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 11:21:08 PM
It is not our job to take in the down trodden of the world (no matter what a gift from France says) anymore than it is your job to let the homeless and hungry live in your home, apartment or retirement facility room.
Or are you doing that now, leftists?


The statue may have been French, but the poem was by an American woman, and put up on Ellis Island by Americans. And *most* Americans are pretty damned proud of it.

In my family, we do indeed bring homeless humans home. That's what real humans, being, do. That's exactly what I wish my government to do.
 whosmeow
Joined: 10/19/2017
Msg: 94
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/10/2018 11:44:22 PM
^I clicked on this because I saw you posted, and wanted to read what you had to say. I'm not one to care much about what others think, but I have always respected your opinions. Thank you for being AMERICAN, and helping others. My mother came through Ellis island after WW2 with a green card pinned to her one dress she was wearing. That's all she had. I remember my parents fighting coming up over the fact that my mother let other immigrants have free rent. Free rent in NYC, in a building she held the mortgage on before they even got married. I cried reading your post. I'm sure many of those kids now adults remember her kindness.

Our children learn from US. What kind of AMERICA are you leaving for the next generation?
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 95
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/11/2018 12:53:26 AM
What your parents did was very nice for the population, Ellis island immigrants and green card holders and anericans and the state and population of the country very very very long ago.

What about

You.

Now.

You.

Ever.

Not apples to rabbits comparisons.

I anticipate the next nice pivot story about something not what of concern.

BUT what your parents did was nice.
 kollata
Joined: 8/30/2017
Msg: 96
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/11/2018 4:47:31 AM
^^^^let me attempt to interpret the illiterate statement above. I believe Dee is saying different day, different time, and she cannot accept there are still decent people out there. She assumes that other peoples are as miserable, selfish and as much of a POS as she is. I.e...because she is indecent she believes all others are indecent.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 97
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/11/2018 9:53:28 AM
Chump blustered before the meet about what he was going to accomplish. then he walked in, lay down, and exposed his belly to everyone. Even other Republicans had to explain to him, when he agreed with Pelosi, how confused he was. I'd link to the video on the Daily Show, but as I've said before....Trumpanzees literally don't "See" it, b/c they would have to have knowledge of what a good deal looks like. What they see instead, is Chump doing what they do on a daily basis. They come here with poor arguments, easily destroyed...and that's why they don't see Chump doing the same thing, as a bad way to make arguments. They praise Chump for doing things they criticized The Great Obama for doing, and yet if you point out the times Chump has golfed, they don't get why that's hypocritical. B/c they too see things thru a biased lens.


they don't intend to lie, they just lack the knowledge and education to know what is better. That's why they hate immigrants so much...better to blame the outsiders for why things are so bad, than to look at themselves and what they've done and what they've agreed to other people doing in their name, to make their lives so bad.

Chump has been a wake up call for so many, who didn't realize they had deplorables in their lives. but, as they try to understand why "good people" do such things, they are realizing the only explain is...they do bad things b/c at heart, they aren't good people. They aren't horrible people, they aren't evil, they are just limited in their biases and self-centeredness. If they ever reached their dream of vacuuming all the immigrants out, they would be left with themselves and their limitations...and find that things are still the same. They'd still be living a Honey Boo Boo-Duck Dynasty lifestyle, wondering why the coal mining makes the air burn when they breathe, why the banks are still taking away their houses when Chump said they had to be deregulated, why computers are doing their jobs when they voted out the unions b/c the boss told them it would save the company more record profits and they got a bonus last year so why don't they have a job today?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 98
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/11/2018 10:54:38 AM
I wonder if tRump realize's the 9th circuit court's preliminary injunction on stopping DACA, means DACA is no longer a bargaining chip for republicants and tRump to use to build the stupid wall...So much winning!!!! Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 kollata
Joined: 8/30/2017
Msg: 99
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/11/2018 2:24:09 PM
From Flick above:



The nonsense about using a gun locked in a safe during a drug sale is contradicted in the written law. All ya had to do was look it up before calling me an 'ahole' for not believing that irrationality.


Well Flick, with a few extra moments today, I took you up on your challenge.... it took me about 45 seconds to find...once again... you are full of sh^t. You say "using a gun locked in a safe during a drug sale is contradicted in the written law. All ya had to do was look it up .... So I did.... which proves you are an ahole who thinks he is above the law, knows more than a Federal Prosecutor or a Federal Judge..and can do whatever he wants.

U.S. v. Peroceski, 520 F.3d 886 (8th Cir., 2008):


"[t]he government need not show that the defendant used or even touched a weapon to prove a connection between the weapon and the offense." United States v. Fladten, 230 F.3d 1083, 1086 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam). This means that "[e]vidence that the weapon was found in the same location as drugs or drug paraphernalia usually suffices." Id. We have also recognized that a well-known tendency of drug criminals to use firearms in connection with their drug activities supports an inference that a gun near the vicinity of drug activity is somehow connected to it. See United States v. Jones, 327 F.3d 654, 657-58 (8th Cir.2003). The gun need not even be operable for it to be connected to the offense. See United States v. Luster, 896 F.2d 1122, 1128-29 (8th Cir.1990).


United States v. Young, 689 F.3d 941 (8th Cir., 2012)


The district court's finding that Mr. Ordaz "possessed" a firearm in connection with the offense, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), was also not clearly erroneous, see United States v. Braggs, 317 F.3d 901, 904 (8th Cir. 2003). The enhancement applies if a "weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense." U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.11). Therefore, to meet its burden, the government must prove two things by a preponderance of the evidence: that a weapon was present and that it was not clearly improbable that it was connected with the offense. United States v. Brown, 148 F.3d 1003, 1008-09 (8th Cir 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1169 (1999); see also United States v. Peroceski, 520 F.3d 886, 888-89 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 912 (2008). The government proves a "connection" between the firearm and the offense "by showing the existence of a temporal and spatial relation between the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant." United States v. Newton, 184 F.3d 955, 958 (8th Cir. 1999). In fact, "[e]vidence that the weapon was found in the same location as drugs or drug paraphernalia usually suffices." United States v. Cave, 293 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Fladten, 230 F.3d 1083, 1086 (8th Cir. 2000)).


Anything else you want to say Flick?

See Flick...you think like a criminal....your brother having been one and your having been close to one (if you were older when you hit the kid with the bat, you would have spent significant time in prison for aggravated battery)...so naturally you were not on the Grand Jury to determine whether probable cause was proven....you were there to ensure your own brand of Justice. Ahole
 kollata
Joined: 8/30/2017
Msg: 100
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 1/11/2018 2:42:42 PM
Gosh Flick...so many cases involving Gun Safes...... how could you be so wrong? I can cite at least 99 cases involving guns locked in safes in which illegal gun possession was established. What were you relying on when you made the determination the Federal Prosecutor didn't know what he was talking about? Just wondering how the mind of an idiot comes to these types of conclusions?

U.S. v. Ortiz, 936 F.2d 581 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1991)


The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Castillo's gun collection. It was proffered on rebuttal after Castillo testified he had acted in fear of the informant. The evidence was therefore probative of his credibility, dealing in drugs, and predisposition to engage in the narcotics trade. United States v. Crespo De Llano, 838 F.2d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Savinovich, 845 F.2d 834, 837 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 943 (1988). Nor did receipt of this evidence unduly prejudice Ortiz; he was arrested with Castillo in the course of a drug transaction, in Castillo's garage, where drugs, drug paraphernalia, and the locked gun safe were found. Those guns were relevant to Ortiz's intent to distribute as well. As to both defendants, Castillo's testimony that his guns were part of an antique collection was for the jury to assess. Both convictions are


Gosh Flick, I wonder why the law has developed in the manner it has. Could it be that drug dealers tend to have weapons in close proximity to themselves? That its a dangerous profession? Are you all in for drug dealers?
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Oprah Winfrey for President