It's about that time now. EEF logs in and replies to many post.  But all without substance.

Sometimes he will get noticeably frustrated as name calling tactic will emerge.

You wish your trolling caused an emotional reaction in my but it doesn't. Name calling emerges logically in tit-for-tat fashion, you call me a name, I respond in kind. Can't take it then don't start it.

You wish your trolling caused an emotional reaction in my but it doesn't. Name calling emerges logically in tit-for-tat fashion, you call me a name, I respond in kind. Can't take it then don't start it.

This is the most immature response anyone could ever display.

I believe this constitutes you being butt-hurt.

You wish your trolling caused an emotional reaction in my but it doesn't. Name calling emerges logically in tit-for-tat fashion, you call me a name, I respond in kind. Can't take it then don't start it.

You still dont' know what "I respond in kind" means.

I have noticed when you get "emotional".  It's actually very obvious.  So once again, you think 1 thing, but in reality, we see something else.  But if you have a hard time telling your emotions, then I apologize that you aren't able to recognize them.  I will let you know if you want me to.

You still dont' know what "I respond in kind" means.

I have noticed when you get "emotional".  It's actually very obvious.  So once again, you think 1 thing, but in reality, we see something else.  But if you have a hard time telling your emotions, then I apologize that you aren't able to recognize them.  I will let you know if you want me to.

You have a camera spying on me to see my facial expressions? You can read my mind? I reply to you very calmly, the only feelings I get are mild frustrations that someone can be as stupid and obtuse as you. But then I remember you may just be trolling in which case you aren't really that stupid, but you pretend to be so you can fill this need you have.

This is the most immature response anyone could ever display.

I believe this constitutes you being butt-hurt.

Your opinion is noted. Does this mean you concede that 8647 doesn't amount to a criminal threat?

Your opinion is noted. Does this mean you concede that 8647 doesn't amount to a criminal threat?

It does when it comes from someone who prosecuted mafia members

You have a camera spying on me to see my facial expressions? You can read my mind? I reply to you very calmly, the only feelings I get are mild frustrations that someone can be as stupid and obtuse as you. But then I remember you may just be trolling in which case you aren't really that stupid, but you pretend to be so you can fill this need you have.

Once again you're wrong. "You can read my mind?".  "facial expressions"?

This is too good. Hahahahha.

It does when it comes from someone who prosecuted mafia members

Legally, no it doesn't, not under current law and SCOTUS decisions.

If 8647 counted as a criminal threat coming from Comey then Trump saying there would be a blood bath if he lost would also constitute a criminal threat. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Once again you're wrong. "You can read my mind?".  "facial expressions"?

This is too good. Hahahahha.

I am wrong how? You claim to know I have emotions I don't have, I ask you how you know I have these emotions and all you can do is say I am wrong. You expect me to prove a negative?
You are the one who can't admit you are wrong.

I am wrong how? You claim to know I have emotions I don't have, I ask you how you know I have these emotions and all you can do is say I am wrong. You expect me to prove a negative?
You are the one who can't admit you are wrong.

Re-read what I posted.  It's very simple, but you once again refuse to admit you are wrong.

Re-read what I posted.  It's very simple, but you once again refuse to admit you are wrong.

My refusal to recognize your delusional claim of being right is not evidence of me refusing to admit I was wrong. I can't admit to something that never happened.

You are a troll and as a troll you need to believe you are eliciting an emotional response in me otherwise your effort produces no benefit for you. 
 

My refusal to recognize your delusional claim of being right is not evidence of me refusing to admit I was wrong. I can't admit to something that never happened.

You are a troll and as a troll you need to believe you are eliciting an emotional response in me otherwise your effort produces no benefit for you. 
 

Hahahhahahaha.  Wow, so much "delusion" in this post.

Legally, no it doesn't, not under current law and SCOTUS decisions.

If 8647 counted as a criminal threat coming from Comey then Trump saying there would be a blood bath if he lost would also constitute a criminal threat. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

False analogy.  Trump qualified his statement saying he was referring to the economy.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the "fine people on both sides" hoax as well.

 

The context of the remark suggests Trump was predicting an
"economic bloodbath" for the country, not a literal one, if he
loses the 2024 presidential election.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-bloodbath-for-country/

I guess you only care about context when trying to gaslight us into believing you weren't wrong.

Legally, no it doesn't, not under current law and SCOTUS decisions.

If 8647 counted as a criminal threat coming from Comey then Trump saying there would be a blood bath if he lost would also constitute a criminal threat. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

It’s a specific threat, not a statement taken out of context

It’s a specific threat, not a statement taken out of context

It isn't the context at issue, the ambiguity is what means this wouldn't meet the level needed to show a criminal threat.
If a statement could be interpreted as a threat but could also be interpreted as something entirely legal then it doesn't pass the test for a threat. A perfect example would be one person saying "you are going to regret that", could be a threat of assault or could be saying they will take a legal recourse. Since "86" is very widely known to mean remove a person from an establishment it would be very hard to argue that Comey both meant it in the sense to kill and that Trump could reasonably take it to mean a threat to his life.

This whole story is the Streisand Effect in action, now "8647" is on shirts and signs, Trump and his followers should have just ignored it.

False analogy.  Trump qualified his statement saying he was referring to the economy.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the "fine people on both sides" hoax as well.

 
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-bloodbath-for-country/

I guess you only care about context when trying to gaslight us into believing you weren't wrong.

Wrong. I wasn't saying Trump should have been investigate/prosecuted for his blood bath comment. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of people saying Comey should be arrested when they defended Trump's comment
Neither comment met the test for a criminal threat.

nobody was "defending Trump's comment"
we didn't have to, all we had to do is point out that he clearly wasn't talking about a literal bloodbath...

Wrong. I wasn't saying Trump should have been investigate/prosecuted for his blood bath comment. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of people saying Comey should be arrested when they defended Trump's comment
Neither comment met the test for a criminal threat.

nobody was "defending Trump's comment"
we didn't have to, all we had to do is point out that he clearly wasn't talking about a literal bloodbath...

I saw many MAGA people defend Trump's blood bath comment.

I saw many MAGA people defend Trump's blood bath comment.

I saw many MAGA people know what he meant.

It isn't the context at issue, the ambiguity is what means this wouldn't meet the level needed to show a criminal threat.
If a statement could be interpreted as a threat but could also be interpreted as something entirely legal then it doesn't pass the test for a threat. A perfect example would be one person saying "you are going to regret that", could be a threat of assault or could be saying they will take a legal recourse. Since "86" is very widely known to mean remove a person from an establishment it would be very hard to argue that Comey both meant it in the sense to kill and that Trump could reasonably take it to mean a threat to his life.

This whole story is the Streisand Effect in action, now "8647" is on shirts and signs, Trump and his followers should have just ignored it.

That's your opinion.  Got any actual legal experts backing you up?