I don’t know what your point is regarding the Idaho murders, but you terrify me. Fox News is not your friend. Turn off the screens and read some books.

LMAO!
Who’s it directed to? Jolene? LOL!!

FACTS! Preach! All facts.

Wow! I'm 'terrifying'. Yikes, I didn't know I had that much power.

And, yes, I read A LOT of many genres. And petty insults are't nice.

This!
So… let’s be honest, Phrozen. If her IQ had ever clawed its way out of the single digits, or if she had even basic neural courage, she’d have addressed me directly. But when your cognitive depth rivals a pothole and your frontal lobe’s still buffering, the only strategy left is detour. So she took the scenic route through Zach — Cute. Safe. Expected. :)

lol
You don’t. Do you realize you’re defending a pussy grabbing, rape deflecting, felony stacking, Epstein-adjacent disgrace of a man, and expecting the rest of us to take you seriously?

Frankly? If ignorance had a fragrance, you’d be wearing it like perfume.

You’re not supporting a president. You’re worshipping a walking court date in a red tie, and trying to pass it off as “values.”

Let’s be real, the only thing Trump ever grabbed with confidence was women who said no, and dumb supporters like you who never did the math.

You’re defending a man who’s bragged about sexual assault, been found liable for it, convicted of 34 felonies, and spent more time around Epstein than his own wife, and somehow, you thought this was your moment to sound smart?

Sweetheart, your political opinions have the intellectual weight of canned air, and if IQ were gas mileage, yours wouldn’t get you out of the driveway.

You’re not informed, you’re just confidently loud in the presence of Google. And if you think clinging to Trump makes you bold, it doesn’t. It just makes you another uninformed bystander in a red hat, yelling over facts you’ve never even read.

The moron you worship grabs women by their vaginas and the only thing you’ve grabbed is a worldview five brain cells short of coherence. Sit down and be quiet.

I’m not disagreeing with you. In fact, you’re right. I’m just saying everybody deserves a fair shot in court, regardless of who it is (whether you like the person or not). Does everybody get that fair shot? No. But me personally, I don’t take sides when it comes to having rights in this country. Everybody deserves the same rights and fair treatment. It’s sad that some people get overlooked. Yeah, Trump has done some dirt, but I wouldn’t make an automatic connection to somebody else’s dirt just because he was hanging around them.

For example. I’m sure you have a circle of close friends you hang with on a regular. If one of them did something foul or corrupt, do you think because you hang around them that you’re foul or corrupt too? Do you think that’d be a fair assessment of you, knowing you’re not like that person?

Haha yeah, I wasn’t sure why she posted her comments to me instead of cheerfulgreek. It was kind of irrelevant.

That’s fair, Zach, and I appreciate how you said it.

And you’re absolutely right that everyone should have the same rights and a fair shot in court. That’s foundational. I don’t believe in guilt by association as a default. Where I draw the line is when patterns emerge. Not just one questionable friend, but repeated proximity to corruption, criminality, and abuse, with no distancing, no accountability, and in some cases, open defense of it.

If one of my friends did something corrupt, I’d feel responsible to speak up, create distance, and make it clear where I stand. And if I didn’t, if I kept showing up at coffee shops, or just going to the mall or hanging out with them where we generally go, brushing off their behavior, or defending them publicly, then yeah, people would have reason to question my integrity. Not because of guilt by association, but because silence and consistency eventually become complicity. Know what I mean?

So while due process should be respected, it’s hard to honor it blindly when wealth, status, or connections can seriously tilt the scale. At some point, it’s less about legal outcomes and more about whether we can still call right and wrong by name. If that makes sense.

Let us also not insult people in this thread. Or any other thread. No one wants to be banned.

This is crazy how this works. Money and politics can buy your way out of anything. Epstein got canned, but look how long it took to do it. Now Trump is talking about pardoning the chick who was in on the sex trafficking with him. At least I know it’s on the table, based on what she wants in exchange for information the government wants from her.

With BK, they’re saying he has no chance at parole. There was some other caveat though that was said during sentencing, but I forgot what it was. I just remember it being something to do with parole.

Copy that. Sorry, carnation.
So I think what you’re talking about is if someone is sentenced to life without parole, there’s like a technical loophole. I mean, it’s unlikely, but I think it’s where a future governor or clemency board could intervene? I’ve seen judges and prosecutors often state this during sentencing to clarify that while parole isn’t an option, there’s still like a theoretical path to release, even if it’s politically or practically impossible.

And honestly, that’s part of the problem. Because when you create legal systems that say “life without parole,” but still leave even a sliver of possibility for political override, it shakes public trust. Victims families are told it’s final, but there’s always some kind of footnote. I just think it blurs the line between justice and negotiation, and in a country where influence and money already bend the system, loopholes like that feel less like fairness and more like a back door that only opens for certain people.

I just think accountability shouldn’t come with an asterisk.

Then what’s the point of saying life in prison without parole? That’s really stupid and makes no sense. No parole should mean no parole.

Right?? I mean, that’s literally what I’ve always thought too. Like, if you say “life without parole”, that should be it. Period. No fine print, no “well technically, if the moon is in retrograde and a governor 30 years from now gets sentimental…” uhh… yeah. No.

But apparently, there’s always this tiny back door left open, like clemency or a pardon, even if it’s super rare. It’s more of a legal technicality than a realistic option, but still. I think they do it to give the justice system flexibility in case something comes to light, like wrongful conviction? Maybe? I don’t really know exactly. But let’s be honest, it also makes it feel like even the most final sounding sentences have a “maybe” clause. Know what I mean? And for victims families? That’s gotta be brutal.

So yeah… I agree with you, Phrozen. No parole should mean no parole. Not “mostly no” with a legal asterisk.

“Justice” in America depends less on what’s right, and more on what can be proven and collected. It makes sense but doesn’t make sense too, depending on the crime.

I wasn’t trying to be nice, but the state of politics has absolutely nothing to do with these murders. You can do better than trying to tie politics to the senseless slaughter of these kids. They deserve to be living their best lives.

I totally get the urge to respond, believe me. But honestly, she’s not worth it. She’s not here to have a real conversation.

The mods already asked for less back and forth, and I’d rather respect that than let her drag things down more than she already has. Some people honestly thrive on getting reactions, and silence tends to frustrate them more than anything we could say.

As far as I’m concerned, her posts here discredit themselves. No response needed.

Come join me and Phrozen instead, where the logic lives. :)

Anyone else think BK dodged the bullet like I do?