Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
All of the available evidence seems to say so.
Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest levels of one or more branches of government. " - https://clinecenter.illinois.edu/projec … roject-cdp
In this case, the "incumbent executive" would be the newly elected President, Joe Biden. To you sharpshooters, it matters not that Biden had not been sworn in yet, he was the duly elected president.
The person organizing the coups is the then current president, Donald Trump, and his minions. The nescient coups attempt began months before the election as Trump laid the groundwork to falsely claim the election was rigged in the event he lost in November. Fast forward to the election and Trump did lose and he started implementing his plan to overthrow the will of the people.
There are several good timelines on Trump's efforts to remain president and throw Biden out of office. This is just one:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics … ndex.html.
It should be noted that Trump is still trying to overturn the election.Here is a little more on how Trump and his minions tried to weaponize DOJ to overturn the election results.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/politics … index.htmlAt this point, it would seem all once again an "if come". At best we are at a wait-and-see juncture. In my personal view, nothing will come of any of the investigations but fodder for media, and some very disappointed Trump haters.
I don’t remember you putting so much effort in when Hillary was whining about a stolen election.
Why is that, do you think?Maybe because she conceded the day after the election, didn't call her supporters to the Capitol and gleefully watch them violently storm the halls of Congress.
And since Russian interference was proven, as was members of the Trump Campaign conspiring with Russian Intelligence, the case of a stolen election actually has some validity.
Why on Earth so many Americans accepted Russians chosen candidate still baffles me.Me too, it is a mystery.
To this day, Trump supporters and minions spout the Putin party propaganda line (they are called Republican talking points) almost verbatim. What is their affinity with everything communist and Russian? (Oh, I think I know, they want autocracy not democracy)Russian interference was not ‘proven’. I doubt the Russians did any more than our government does to influence opinion during foreign elections. I saw no evidence that they swayed voters or tampered with our voting. There was clear evidence of tampering by Hillary and the DNC with the fake and bogus dossier they floated that disrupted our republic for years.
Nor did she concede the election. I believe she is still whining about having lost it unfairly.
And, honestly? I find the civil disruption pushed by the left, before and after the election (which is still ongoing) to have been much more destructive to our cohesiveness as a society.
I’m sorry but you’ve already pushed a lie about January 6th in a prior conversation so you lack any credibility on this topic. Your feces claims were ridiculous. I have far left family members I shared that claim with and each of them rolled their eyes and complained about both sides making up bs stories.Here is the Senate Report confirming Russian Interference. It's actually titled Active Measures and Interference:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit … olume1.pdf
"We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, directly refuting President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that Russian interference was a "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats.
Hilary did not concede? What reality are you living in?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khK9fIgoNjQ
Ummm, the feces claim was not mine, but thanks for being confused about who said what at this site. Please go back and look at that thread so you can be clear about who made that claim so you can make accurate accusations from now on. But just to show you where those claims might have originated, here are a few links:
https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/rioters-l … s-capitol/
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politi … story.html
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national … r-BB1cAQXK
https://www.revolt.tv/news/2021/1/8/222 … eared-poop
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … pitol.html
https://www.ibtimes.sg/dna-test-poop-sm … gins-54777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RJSRpa8Q08
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2105149/tr … -building/"Russian interference was not ‘proven’. " - Obviously a far-right false talking point. In addition to what Valeant wrote, you should read this:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/fi … 6/download
"There was clear evidence of tampering by Hillary and the DNC with the fake and bogus dossier they floated that disrupted our republic for years." - What proof, lol? Nobody even looked because this is nothing more than another Republican/Putin lie. As to the Steele dossier, the person who first "floated" was, if memory serves, Sen McCain - a Republican.
Pertinent facts about the dossier that Trump minions prefer to ignore in there bogus attempt to change the narrative:
1. The dossier "is an unfinished 35-page compilation of raw intelligence"
2. The dossier was leaked (contrary to the commenters claim)
3. "The dossier's 17 reports allege that Trump campaign members and Russian operatives had conspired to co-operate in Russia's election interference to benefit Trump." - While Mueller didn't have quite enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy, he did prove what we commonly think of as collusion (I think Mueller was wrong regarding Paul Manafort, I think there was more than enough evidence to prove "conspiracy")
4. "It also alleges that Russia sought to damage Hillary Clinton's candidacy, including sharing negative information about Clinton with the Trump campaign." - This was TRUE
5. "The draft dossier was published in full by BuzzFeed News on January 10, 2017, noting that it was unverified"
6. The Steele Dossier began with Republicans - "In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates."
7. It seems like Steele didn't even know the Democrats had taken over the Republican effort for quite a while. "DNC officials denied knowing their attorney had contracted with Fusion GPS, and Steele asserted he was not aware the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research until months after he contracted with Fusion GPS."
8. "Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated in particular its main allegations that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians.
9. "Contrary to a conspiracy theory promoted by Trump, Fox News, and many of Trump's congressional supporters, the dossier was not the trigger for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into "whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,"
10. "It did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page in terms of establishing FISA's low bar for probable cause" - And that was ALL it did, contrary to all of the lies put out by Trump and his minions and defenders
All of that was easy to find, you just needed to look rather than believe Republican/Putin propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
"I find the civil disruption pushed by the left, before and after the election (which is still ongoing) to have been much more destructive to our cohesiveness as a society." - first, it wasn't the "left" pushing anything, it was the killing of unarmed blacks that did the "pushing" and second, it is sad you don't recognize that
"I’m sorry but you’ve already pushed a lie about January 6th in a prior conversation" - What Lie?? That it didn't happen or that the police are lying about getting beat up?The Russian dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. They were the only ones that have been proven to be using Russian contacts to compose lies about Trump. This is a fact and has been well proven via the Muller report.
"The Democratic Party-financed dossier, once celebrated by liberal Washington politicians and journalists, is officially debunked, according to a review of special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page investigative report.
Dossier creator Christopher Steele, who was paid with money from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, leveled at least a dozen Russian election conspiracy charges against President Trump and associates."
https://apnews.com/article/technology-j … d92b775d98
SORRY FOR THE LONG LIST --- BUT ONCE AND FOR ALL HERE ARE MUELLER"S FINDING'S --- The facts as Mueller reported
Here are 12 of Mr. Steele’s 2016 conspiracy charges that were in the dossier, as compared with Mueller's factual findings.
Mr. Steele: There was an “extensive conspiracy between Trump campaign team and Kremlin” and a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between them and Russian leadership.”
Mr. Mueller: Not true. “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he wrote.
Mr. Steele: Mr. Trump and his team set up a hacking operation in the U.S. Mr. Trump funded hacking teams overseas along with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Mr. Mueller: Not true. The Mueller investigation found no such illegal activities.
Mr. Steele: The supposed U.S. hacking operation was funded by the Russian Embassy in Washington. It skimmed cash off pension payments to emigres. The Trump team was involved.
Mr. Mueller: No such evidence was presented.
Mr. Steele: Former campaign manager Paul Manafort and volunteer adviser Carter Page worked as a team to liaison with the Kremlin on election interference.
Mr. Mueller: Not true. “The investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,” the report said.
For Manafort, the Mueller report cited his sharing of internal polling with his longtime employee in Ukraine, Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the FBI believes is tied to Russian intelligence.
“The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts,” the report states.
Mr. Steele: The Trump campaign received a regular flow of anti-Democratic Party intelligence from the Kremlin.
Mr. Mueller: Not true.
Mr. Steele: Mr. Trump exchanged information with Russian intelligence for eight years.
Mr. Mueller: Not true.
Mr. Steele: Mr. Trump knew of and supported WikiLeaks’ alliance with Moscow, which fed stolen Democratic Party emails to the anti-secrecy group. It released them in huge batches during the campaign.
Mr. Mueller: Weeks before the election, evidence pointed to the Kremlin as the hacker. There is no evidence that Mr. Trump supported the illegal activity.
Mr. Steele: The Kremlin told Mr. Trump it had incriminating evidence on him but would not use it.
Mr. Mueller: No evidence of conspiracy.
Mr. Steele: Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen secretly traveled to Prague in August 2016 to meet with Putin cronies to devise a cover-up of the conspiracy and pay off hackers. This is one of Mr. Steele’s most sensational charges.
Mr. Mueller: Not true. “Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false,” the special counsel wrote.
Mr. Steele: Carter Page, while on a public trip to Moscow in July 2016 to deliver a commencement speech, met with two powerful Putin associates. Mr. Page agreed to a huge bribe in exchange for lifting U.S. economic sanctions on Russian businesses and figures.
Mr. Mueller: Investigators couldn’t determine everything Mr. Page, an energy investor, did during the trip. Mr. Page repeatedly has denied the Steele tale. He wasn’t charged. Mr. Mueller cleared him of any election conspiracy.
Mr. Steele: Russian intelligence has material on Mr. Trump’s sex escapades in The Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow during the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant, which he co-owned with NBCUniversal.
Mr. Mueller: His report contains no evidence. Rumored tapes of the encounter with prostitutes are “fake,” Giorgi Rtskhiladze, a U.S.-based businessman, told the FBI. Mr. Rtskhiladze was an early player in the Trump Organization’s 2015-16 bid to build a Moscow hotel.
Mr. Steele: Russian entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev, owner of the web-hosting service firm XBT, hacked Democratic Party computers under pressure from Russian intelligence. Mr. Gubarev categorically denies the charge and has sued Mr. Steele in London.
Mr. Mueller: His report depicts Russian military intelligence officers as the lone hackers, working out of boiler rooms at a Moscow headquarters. There is no mention of Mr. Gubarev.
These are the facts as Mueller discovered in a twp year investigation.
There was no evidence that Trump conspired with Russia to win the election. Mueller did find Russia did interfere with the election but were non-related to conspiring with the GOP or Trump.
It is disheartening to see many still spread conspiracy theories and make claims that Trump worked with Russian's to try to win the election. There is only one person that did that --- Hillary Clinton she bought and paid for the information that was reportedly from Russians.
It always amazes me how Democrats can make accusations against someone, as Hillary did, of exactly what they tried to perpetrate. More amazing they can sell it to some of the public."The Russian dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. " - Since you appear to be confused about this, let's reprise a couple of facts:
6. The Steele Dossier began with Republicans - "In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates."
7. It seems like Steele didn't even know the Democrats had taken over the Republican effort for quite a while. "DNC officials denied knowing their attorney had contracted with Fusion GPS, and Steele asserted he was not aware the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research until months after he contracted with Fusion GPS."
So much for that false narrative.
I just noticed the source of your information - a right-wing opinion piece from a right-wing newspaper, Washington Times. So there is no telling if the author reported the right context.
Here are a few examples of what IS TRUE from the raw intelligence:
... that there was an extensive and "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership",[170] with information willingly exchanged in both directions.[171] That this co-operation was "sanctioned at the 'highest level' and involved Russian diplomatic staff based in the US" - While Mueller couldn't delope enough evidence to convince him he could win a conspiracy conviction in court, he definitely laid out lots of examples of what we term collusion (keep in mind Mueller ALSO SAID much information was kept hidden from his team).
"...That the Trump campaign used "moles within DNC as well as hackers in the US and Russia" - Not Dispproven
".. that Trump associates had established "an intelligence exchange [with the Kremlin] for at least 8 years". That Trump and his team had delivered "intelligence on the activities, business and otherwise, in the US of leading Russian oligarchs and their families", as requested by Putin." - Apparently verified - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786
".. that a major goal of the Russians in supporting Trump was "to upset the liberal international status quo, including on Ukraine-related sanctions, which was seriously disadvantaging the country" - Mueller and others verified this
"... that Putin aimed to spread "discord and disunity" within the United States and between Western allies, whom he saw as a threat to Russia's interests." - Mueller and others verified this
"... that "TRUMP was viewed as divisive in disrupting the whole US political system; anti-Establishment; and a pragmatist with whom they could do business." That Trump would remain a divisive force even if not elected." - Common Knowledge
"... that Putin feared and hated Hillary Clinton." - Not sure about the "feared" part, but the "hated" part is obvious
"... that Putin's interference operation had an "objective of weakening CLINTON and bolstering TRUMP"." - That was one of Mueller's major findings"The Russian dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC." - is false. Testimony says that Hillary and the DNC didn't even know about it to start with. Give me the quote in Mueller's report that says they did. If you can't, concede you are wrong.
So biden should not raise a heel against Putin?!
Because HIllary never "whined" about a stolen election. She conceded right away like any honorable and ethical person would and not put democracy at risk like Trump is doing.
More about the attempted coup by Trump prior to the Jan 6 insurrection. This is a statement from Sen Blumingthal after listening to testimny from former acting AG Rosen on Saturday.
"Blumenthal said he “was struck by how close the country came to total catastrophe” after listening to the entire closed-door testimony of Rosen Saturday."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/07/politics … index.htmlAnalysis by Stephen Collison of the latest revelations about Trump's on-going coup attempt.
It starts out with "A burst of new disclosures exposing the extraordinary efforts by ex-President Donald Trump to steal power after his election defeat constitute a grave warning about the future and his potential bid to recapture the White House.
The audacity of the former President’s attempts to subvert the law by weaponizing the Justice Department not only underscores how close the United States came to a full blown constitutional crisis this year. It also emphasizes that any attempt by Trump to use a war chest already worth $100 million to try to recapture the White House in 2024 would represent a mortal threat to democracy and the rule of law from a leader who was undeterred even by his own first impeachment."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/09/politics … index.htmlTrump never had any evidence the election was "rigged" and still doesn't have any such evidence - as demonstrated by his lawyers' inability to verify any fraud claims in court. Yet, he attempt to force the Justice Department to overturn the election. Bill Barr has stated so and Jeffrey Rosen has testified to that.
What is clear now is the former President Trump needs to be in jail for treason and that anyone who could possibly still support the man is a traitor to this country, more interested in worshipping a demagogue than the country's Constitution."Trump never had any evidence the election was "rigged" and still doesn't have any such evidence " - Didn't you know Trump never lies and his word is gospel? LOL.
This is mostly-irrelevant to the conversation, but I had to comment because it made me laugh. I misread this question as:
"Did Trump really try to impregnate a cop?"
I was like, "Uh, probably," but then I realized I misread the title, lmao!Well Gee, Trump was wrong again - he wasn't installed as president today as he and his supporters tried to scare us with. That said, he is still stoking the flames and inciting his more violent supplicants to stage another attack - at least that is what DHS believes.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/13/politics … index.htmlThey also rebuked Reeder for claiming in an April FBI interview that the riot was "a plan to allow people in" so the media could "demonize the Trump people" -- a conspiracy theory that 55% of Republicans believe is true, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that was conducted in April.
Isn't it absolutely amazing that 55% of supposedly intelligent Republicans believe this conspiracy theory BS.
Not sure how to break the news --- So I will let Reuters do it -- "WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials." https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclus … 021-08-20/
"FBI finds no evidence Capitol riot was coordinated
Dozens of followers of far-right militias have been charged with conspiracy from the January 6 riots, but the FBI doesn’t believe they had a plan once they entered the US Capitol"
"The FBI has reportedly found no evidence that far-right allies of Donald Trump conspired to overturn the presidential election during the January 6 assault on the US Capitol, according to law enforcement officers briefed on the investigation." https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-finds-no-evi … 03169.html
Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup? It appears the FBI does not think so...
It just was not fair for some to accuse President Trump of participating in any form of planning of the Jan 6 riot.I don't think anybody ever claimed there was one or two central figures that sat down and actively planned the riot. As the article says, there were a few groups who did organize and plan to enter the capitol - many of those are facing conspiracy charges now.
But that is not what implementing a coup means. Trump knows how to rile people up. Trump knows they were primed to riot because he set the stage. Trump sent them to the Capitol with a specific purpose - to stop the vote count. They did that. That is a coup."The person organizing the coups is the then current president, Donald Trump, and his minions. The nescient coups attempt began months before the election as Trump laid the groundwork to falsely claim the election was rigged in the event he lost in November. Fast forward to the election and Trump did lose and he started implementing his plan to overthrow the will of the people."
Need I quote some of what you claimed in the weeks after the Jan riot?
Come on... You were very much accusatory of Trump, and the people that entered the Capitol. Conspiracies as a rule don't pan out. As all the Trump accusations, from his Taxes to Russia Russia --- none turned out to be factual.Your quote is correct. And to the extent that Trump set the stage and pulled the trigger, he "organized" it. He didn't the inflammatory lying. He assembled his "troops" in Washington DC. He sent them to the Capitol with the words to "Fight for America". And that is what they did.
Now, were there formal strategy sessions by Trump or any others to lay out the tactics and plan the minute to minute moves, I seriously doubt it. It is THAT level of planning that the FBI found little evidence of.I would have to say that liberal cities "set the stage" with months of demonstrating that rioting is not only all right but the right thing to do. Of course, the rioters in DC didn't do near the damage that was done elsewhere, but maybe they weren't very experienced at burning and looting, either. Or maybe they just had an agenda (demand a fair election) and stuck to it rather than simply destroy under the guise of demanding an end to law enforcement.
Of course I also understand that you will disagree that months of watching thousands upon thousands of people burning cities with no response (except to refuse any help) played no part in "setting the stage". But it is my opinion, along with millions of others, that watching that disgraceful display of anarchy DID have an effect beyond burned out buildings and livelihoods destroyed.Your so-called liberals cities didn't lie to Trump supporters about not losing the election, now did they. They protested cops killing blacks.
You are again making things up. There were never "thousands upon thousands of people burning cities" - that is simply a lie. If you had said tens to a hundred CRIMINALS burning cities, then you might have something.
Saying "with no response" is another lie - plain and simple.
I'll use one of your tactics - Did you talk to each of those millions of people you reference?
And once again you show you are not capable of understanding the difference between some buildings in a city and the seat of American Democracy. SAD.Unfortunately our Capital building is no longer the seat of American Democracy. It used to be, but the American form of democracy requires people working together and compromising with each other to guide and run the nation. That concept has died, with every year making it more and more obvious that the "leaders" of our nation are not interested in working with each other and not interested in either the needs of the nation or its people. Thus that building is no longer the "seat of American Democracy"; it is only the place where professional lifelong politicians use Democracy to pad their own pockets and build their power. SAD.
You want the real "seat of American Democracy"? It is in the towns and cities of the country. It is in the police precinct buildings from which Democratic based laws are enforced. It is in the courtrooms in those same towns and cities. It is even in at least some of the state capitals where laws are enacted. But it is no longer in Washington DC, where no one cares about American Democracy any more.Yes, it is SAD, but I am not ready to give up. Here is what has come (or is coming out) of that 100% dysfunctional gov't you describe.
Yes, many are small, but then so are most bills passed out of Congress, but there are big ones as well.
HR 1448 - Puppies Assisting Wounded Service Members (PAWS)
HR 3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
HR 1868 - Suspension of Medicare Sequestration
SJ Res 13 - Methane capture
SJ Res 14 - Protect borrowers from predatory lenders
SJ Res 15 - Makes it easier to file for workplace discrimination
S 957 - Dispose Unused Medications and Prescription Opioids Act
S 1910 - Major Medical Facility Authorization Act of 2021
HR 3325 - to award four congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol Police
HR 3237 - Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021
HR 2630 - Extending Temporary Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act
HR 2523 - THRIVE Act
S 475 - Juneteenth National Independence Day Act
And many more. So you can see, Congress hasn't been sitting on its hand entirely. Most just haven't made the right-wing propaganda outlets yet (or the MSN for that matter).And while they give puppies to people our southern border is a sieve and they welcome thousands into the country while infected with COVID. They refuse to consider the badly needed infrastructure bill to repair our failing infrastructure until they ALSO get a $3T wish list spending bill we cannot afford. As far as I know they STILL aren't enforcing the laws by deporting illegal aliens from the interior.
But you're right - they ARE good at discussing and even passing the small stuff that makes them look good. Like giving puppies to vets. Things that will buy them votes.
While the biggest problems go unaddressed for decades, like 20 million illegal aliens within our borders and bridges failing all across the country.So our wounded vets aren't worth the effort to you. I guess I am not surprised by that view since that is the same one Trump holds.
Since we need those 20 million illegal aliens within our borders to keep our economy running, why not just make them all citizens? Your problem solved?
In any case, your point was that Congress has done absolutely, 100% nothing, thereby giving up the moniker of the seat of democracy. I simply pointed out that while they are indeed doing a very poor job, they are still doing some of what they were sent there to do and therefore keep the Seat of Democracy title."So our wounded vets aren't worth the effort to you."
Figured that would be your response - I won't discuss it again except to note that puppies to vets does nothing for the country; that it is individuals that have the need.
"Since we need those 20 million illegal aliens within our borders to keep our economy running, why not just make them all citizens?"
We did. Several times. And the problem just got bigger, along with the costs of supporting them.
"In any case, your point was that Congress has done absolutely, 100% nothing, thereby giving up the moniker of the seat of democracy."
Oh no! Not at all! The point was that Capital Hill no longer addresses the needs of the country - that such things are left to state/local governments while Congress works at keeping their jobs. And, of course, shoveling money about. It's all opinion, of course, but I find that Capital Hill actually does very little any more - too concerned about their power and their pocketbook. The things that actually need doing are done by states or don't get done at all.
(The state of Idaho, for instance, sent police to help at the border since Biden refuses to control it and the states there are in dire straits from the invasion. Meanwhile Congress cancels funding for physical barriers and welcomes border crossers if they can just get by the skeleton force of Border Patrol.)By saying what you said, you imply that it is not a good thing for Congress to help the disabled vets. That you would rather Congress do nothing regarding their health and welfare. That is basically what you are saying.
"And the problem just got bigger" - What problem? I don't see a problem other than conservatives riling everybody up about it.
"along with the costs of supporting them." - I provided you proof many times over that there is a net benefit for having illegals here. It would be even more of a benefit it we eliminated the huge expense of trying to deport them, which only hurts our economy.
"The things that actually need doing are done by states or don't get done at all. " - Well given the sad state of economics in most Red states, I would have to say they are not getting anything do either - other than trying to help kids catch Covid or make it harder for people to vote.
Most Blue states, on the other hand, aren't doing that badly."By saying what you said, you imply that it is not a good thing for Congress to help the disabled vets."
YOU might make that claim, but it certainly is not one I would make. It is fine and good that Congress helps the disabled vets, but (as I made abundantly clear) it has nothing to do with the needs of the country.
"I provided you proof many times over that there is a net benefit for having illegals here."
No - you made the claim but simply left out most of the costs when comparing benefits to costs. That is NOT proof that it is cheaper to feed, clothe, house, police and educate them.
"Well given the sad state of economics in most Red states..."
Yeah. That's why the state of Idaho just returned many millions of tax dollars to taxpayers; because their economics is so bad. And why California, among other blue states, is on the verge of bankruptcy; because their economics is so good."No - you made the claim but simply left out most of the costs when comparing benefits to costs." - NOT TRUE, the studies I provided for you looked at ALL of the costs and benefits.
Now, lets check out your Idaho claim. Hmmm, they rank 48th out of 50 states plus D.C.in GDP per capita
How about Red vs Blue states:
- Out of the top 10 states, 8 are blue and 2 are red.
- Out of the bottom 10 states, 2 are blue and 8 are red.
I think my claim stands."Hmmm, they rank 48th out of 50 states plus D.C.in GDP per capita"
Perhaps you are more concerned with the wealth of the average citizen than the "economic health" of the state government? I was speaking of how well the state handles its resources (money) - were you speaking of how rich the residents are instead?
We may have a mis-communication, a misunderstanding of the topic itself here.Oh, give me a break, your comment is absurd. I thought you understood economics, lol.
I understand that Idaho is economically healthy while California is on the brink of bankruptcy.
I also understand that it costs far less to live in Idaho than it does in California, meaning a much lower average salary (making per capita GDP) does not need to be astronomical as it does in other states (basic economics). Unfortunately, that is changing with a deluge of Californians "immigrating" to the cheaper state.Then why does Idaho have such a pitiful GDP compared to California? And sense you obviously need reminding, GDP is one of the best indicators of economic health because it measures the total output in goods and services. And in that measure, Idaho is almost last.
OR...GDP measures the cost of living via the wages paid.
If a home costs 1,000,000 in LA and 200,000 in Idaho, and the wages reflect those figures, then GDP is way up in California even though both states afford the people a house. Just a simple example, but the rest of it follows through, from groceries to utilities to household appliances. I recently gave up buying a car in California, for example, because the state demanded I pay their 9.5%+ sales tax rather than my own 6% - the extra is reflected in the state's GDP but NOT in what the people can purchase.
But again, I was speaking of the economic health of the state government, not the wealth of the people. California is skirting bankruptcy while Idaho is giving excess taxes back to the people - it seems obvious that Idaho is in much better shape economically, as a state entity, than California is. You appear to be speaking of the wealth of the people, but neglect to consider cost of living in an effort to "prove" that liberal states, with extreme cost of living to match their extreme wages, is somehow better off.There is a theoretical connection between wages and GDP, but it is not direct as you try to imply. In addition to wages, rent, interest, and profit figure in as well. It is the sum of those that equal the National Income version of GDP. Because of those additional factors, wages and GDP are not directly connected.
The complete formula is Consumption + Investment + Gov't Spending + Net Exports = Depreciation, Indirect Business Taxes (e.g. sales taxes) + Wages + Rent + Interest + Profit.
Then the reason you divide by population is to each state (or nation) on an even footing and allow for comparisons. Because wages is just one of six factors, you obviously cannot talk about wages in isolation - it will lead to wrong conclusions.
And no, I am not talking about the wealth of the people. To be clear, I am talking about GDP (actually, it is GSP) as a broad measure of a states economic strength. Or, to phrase it differently
"GDP is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced domestically in a single year and is the single most important measure of macroeconomic performance. "
BTW, California has the 4th strongest economy of the 50 states. It is not "skirting" bankruptcy. That is just one of those conservative urban myths you buy into."In addition to wages, rent, interest, and profit figure in as well."
Of course it is! Equally "of course" is that if wages are low, so will we rent, interest (dollars, not percentage) and profit. Without high wages none of those can be high either.
Consider that if you cut in half all the prices and all the incomes the GDP will be cut in half as well. (This does ignore exports, of course, and that WILL change the numbers some). If you remove just the entertainment industry (Hollywood and it's spin-offs), with its high dollar income and profits, housing and other products will fall precipitously. Then take away the electronics field and it will drop again. You have also taken away a great deal of the wealth of California, which is what I was trying to point out.
California, as a collection of people, is certainly not skirting bankruptcy - Hollywood alone would nearly take care of that. But the state government just as certainly is. The payout is far too great for the income in spite of having enormous taxes.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/9-most-b … on-bandlerThe Daily Wire is a far-right outlet whose own source, Mercatus Center, doesn't support its hyperbolic headline. Even by their measure, California is not "skirting" bankruptcy. In fact, 1) California is running a surplus, 2) California's has more cash on-hand than short-term debt, 3) its revenues exceed its expenses, and 4) its long-term debt is LESS than its total assets.
I went and looked for other state rankings. None showed California anywhere near bankruptcy. In fact, several of ranked California above Idaho.
None show Idaho even close to California relative to economic output or growth, which was my original claim.
GMU is my alma mater and is a libertarian oriented college which I didn't know when I attended. But since my masters is in Operations Research, I suppose it doesn't make much difference.*waves white flag* OK! OK! I give! California is the epitome of a well run state! I'd hate to pay their tax rates, but it is the best in the country!
(Would you please explain how great the state is to the hordes that are flooding Idaho now that it's common to work from home? I presume that other states feel the same; Idaho isn't the only place the departing population is moving to.)Idaho is a beautiful state for sure. But that said, not everybody is staying there. One of my employees who just semi-retired just moved to Ohio.
BTW, don't you ever get tired of hitting one extreme or the other?I don't know about "beautiful"; when I moved here from Virginia 22 years ago I missed the vegetation of the coastal state. Still do, for that matter, although I don't miss the humidity and the bugs.
Of course some move out - that goes without saying. But the state IS seeing a massive influx of people; the town I live in was the fastest growing in the country for several years and is still growing too fast to keep up with. The main street outside my subdivision, a two lane country road just a few years ago is now a 4 lane parking lot and won't attempt a left turn onto it.
6 Weeks Later and Trump is STILL trying to overturn the election. He recently sent a letter to the GA SOS demanding that he decertify the GA election results. (Which is being included in both the GA and House investigations of Trump's illegal activities)
Then there is this where it appears Trump came closer to succeeding with his coup attempt than we thought. Newly discovered emails describe the extent of his effort.
"New bombshells show Trump's coup threat was real and hasn't passed
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/22/politics … index.html
One ironic quote puts a floor on Trump during the days after his defeat (keep in mind, this from people who don't believe Trump was trying to execute a coup)
And skeptics of the coup terminology also suggested that Trump's efforts were little more than madcap and incompetent political theater.
And then there is this from Trump lawyer on how VP Pence can overthrow the election.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics … index.htmlA bombshell IMO would be some sort of factual proof that leads to an arrest. Not a bunch of he said she said. New evidence of a coup??? Really, any dated when the insurrection was to take place? Any instruction in regard to anything? Any instructions of any kind? Quoting your CNN article
"Trump had blueprints that the Republicans tried to use to prevent Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's clear and genuine victory, in the form of a memo that laid out a plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence to thwart Biden's Electoral College triumph. The memo was reported in the new book "Peril," by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, and was later obtained by CNN.
Trump's own campaign staff knew that outlandish claims of fraud made by the then-President's lawyers were utterly false, according to a report in The New York Times. But they did nothing to stop his dangerous allegations.
Trump sent a letter full of false information to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, asking him to start the process of decertifying the 2020 election.
"Peril" also contains a passage that shows Trump cared little for truth, what voters decided in November or bedrock constitutional values -- but agonized about his reputation and mused that accepting defeat would brand him as one of history's losers."
Your comment "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest levels of one or more branches of government. "
Do you have any form of evidence of an "organized effort on Trump's part to plan a coup? Not words he said at a rally that you add your own context, but a coordinated Plan...
Your comment -- "The person organizing the coups is the then-current president, Donald Trump, and his minions. The nescient coups attempt began months before the election as Trump laid the groundwork to falsely claim the election was rigged in the event he lost in November. "
"False claims" are in any respect well-set out plan or instructions to commit a Government coup.
Perhaps it's time to return to the unraveling Russia conspiracy you felt was 100% true. John Durham has indicted a second co-conspirator that participated in the Hillary Clinton Russian Hoax. This is current and worth discussing. Here is the Sussmann indictment... It's well-written and factual.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/politics … index.html"A bombshell IMO would be some sort of factual proof that leads to an arrest. " - And why do you qualify that with "leads to an arrest"? Is the proof not valid if there is not arrest? If so, why? You definitely have factual proof in the emails.
Do you not agree that Trump was trying to remove the lawful executive (Biden) by overturning a fair and free and certified (by the States) election? If you don't think so, then exactly what do you think Trump has been up to since June of 2020??
Since Trump had
1) been prepping his base with his Bid Lie since June getting them ready to revolt in case he lost, and
2) then he and his minions then driving home the Big Lie in the two months after he lost the election and
3) then crafting his plans for Pence not to certify the election, and
4) then calling his troops to Washington D.C. on the day of the certification vote, and
5) then inflaming the mob that showed up with hate and violence filled rhetoric (always being care to say one or two peaceful things in there for his supporters to trot out and say SEE), and
6) then sending them marching to the Capitol to SAVE AMERICA (a march he promised to join but characteristically lied about doing), and
7) then not reacting when word of the horrific violence taking place at the Capitol reached him.
To me, that is a slam dunk prosecution that any juror with half a brain could follow leading to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since there was no so-called "Hillary Clinton Russian Hoax" that statement cannot in any way be true. Now if you had said the truth which is a Republican-driven investigation into the Trump campaigns Russian connections (of which there were many), then at least you started from a true premise.
As to the laughable indictment of Sussmann:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-cou … l-sussmann
EXCERPTS:
Durham had, beyond that one case (a low level FBI lawyer) issued no findings or reports and had charged nobody with anything. He had merely existed and, by existing, allowed expectations and conspiracy theories to swirl around him.
And
But now Durham has spoken on his own. He has indicted a cybersecurity lawyer named Michael Sussmann for allegedly making a single false statement in a conversation in 2016 with then-FBI General Counsel Jim Baker. The allegedly false statement concerned not Trump or Russia, but whom Sussmann represented when he brought Baker some information about an alleged electronic connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.
WOW, Explosive!
The indictment is, in other words, far removed from the grave FBI misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. Very far removed. In fact, it doesn’t describe FBI malfeasance against Trump at all, but portrays the FBI as the victim of agitprop brought to it by outside political operatives. It describes the FBI as diligently running down the leads it had been fed by these operatives and then, well, dropping the matter when it learned they had no merit.
Sussmann has pled not guilty and I bet will win.
Well, as expected the SHAM Arizona Republican so-called "audit" (part of Trump's coup attempt) found that Biden beat Trump. In fact, if you can believe the "audit", Biden GAINED 99 votes while Trump LOST over 200!! LOL.
Now Texas (where Trump won) and Pennsylvania will waste a lot of taxpayer's money to come to the same conclusion.
I would say "what a farce" if it weren't so damaging to American democracy.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/politics … index.htmlSuch old news, most have long moved on from the 2020 election. We have had a new president for 8 months. And it is very clear at this point the majority of American's are having buyers remorse. Polls are worsening daily.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, sponsored by The ANTIFA by Jack Posobiec, for Friday shows that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Biden’s job performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.
The latest figures include 23% who Strongly Approve of the job Biden is doing and 47% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -24. (see trends)
Fivethirtyeight this morning 49.2 disapproval -- 45.4 approval.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bi … al-rating/
Maybe you might want to keep a closer eye on your guy, and his grifter of a son.
And all the revelations that are being reported on the Durham investigation.
So, odd you can ignore all of the current news. Seem's like you only worry about the past, not the present.ALL the Revelations? Come on, give me a break. He has had zero, none, nada, zilch "revelations" about anything. Even the one, singular, unique guilty plea wasn't a "revelation", it was already known.
Durham has been a huge waste of money and resources and a stain on his good reputation.As was Mueller... I consider Durham connecting the Clinton Campaign and the very attorney that represented that campagn planted one of the firsts Lies or seeds of Hillary Russia grift very very relevant. It would seem you are willing to ignore evidence, as you did with all the Steel dodier. and the railroading of Fylnn and Carter Page. The puzzle is coming together nicely. Not sure what else Durham has, but hopefully he traps Hillary, she is a slipper rat, and always has been.
So you think not telling the FBI who he represented is relevant? What is it relevant to? Sorry, but you are clearly tilting at windmills here and making mountain out of tiny little ant hills.
As to Mueller, I just chalk that up to your unreasonable belief that Trump or his campaign or his administration can't be guilty of anything even though many have been indicted and found or pleaded guilty. I am sorry to say, it is that blindness to reality which makes most of us take anything you say with a shaker of salt.
What "railroading"?? Flynn pleaded guilty and he was guilty of much more. And I have to repeat myself again about the dossier - a lot of it was verified and none of it was disproved! The rest falls in that gray area of maybe true, maybe not
Since Durham has found nothing, I suspect his "investigation" will be closed. Remember, a few of his staff quit from being pressured to find something wrong when their was no evidence.
I am still hoping Congress or DOJ will indict Trump on the many cases of Obstruction of Justice that Mueller provided lots of evidence for."So you think not telling the FBI who he represented is relevant? What is it relevant to? Sorry, but you are clearly tilting at windmills here and making mountain out of tiny little ant hills."
I think Sussmann was sent to do a job --- lie, which he did. You seem to forget or I will give you the benefit of the doubt --- what he told the FBI was proven to be untrue.
"Special counsel John Durham charged lawyer Michael Sussman over a statement during a Sept. 19, 2016 meeting between Sussmann and the then-FBI general counsel, James Baker, at which Sussman told Baker about suspicions relating to alleged secret communications between the Trump campaign and Russia. The suspicions were later determined to be unfounded."
"In fact, Sussmann acted on behalf of specific clients, namely a U.S. Technology Industry Executive, a U.S. Internet Company, and the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign.” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic … n-n1279353
His lie misled an FBI investigation, that held no truth and slandered the President. right before the election. Did not work, but Clinton gave it her all.
It's been reported (leaked) that Durham Durham at this point is requesting indictments on Perkins Coie.
This past week Sussmann resigned from his law firm, Perkins Coie.
The full list of Mueller indictments and plea deals
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.
2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them). He was sentenced to a combined seven and a half years in prison.
3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide, and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statement charge and one conspiracy charge. He was sentenced to 45 days in prison and 3 years of probation.
4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. -- Charges were dropped
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.
23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.
24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.
36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush-money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story. He was convicted on all counts after a November 2019 trial.
Finally, there is one other person Mueller initially investigated but handed over to others in the Justice Department to charge: Sam Patten. This Republican operative and lobbyist pleaded guilty to not registering as a foreign agent with his work for Ukrainian political bigwigs, and agreed to cooperate with the government.
None of these changes have led to any charges against Trump. This is just factual.
Not sure how you can know what Durham has found in his lengthy investigation, the report has not been presented. He did indict Sussmann due to being up against the statute of limitations on charging him.
Then there was this ugly Clinton ploy --- that Durham uncovered. You may call this nothing, but it more than proves what lengths Clinton would go to smear Trump. Let's not forget the ridiculous Steel fake dossier.
"Kevin Clinesmith, the former FBI lawyer who altered an email during the Russia investigation that was used to justify the surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, was sentenced to one-year probation on Friday.
Clinesmith, who worked for the FBI for four years, pleaded guilty last summer to falsifying the communication during the early stages of the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to the Trump campaign.
The document was altered to show that Page was "not a source" for the CIA, even though the original message from the CIA indicated otherwise. The CIA had earlier told investigators in a memo that Page was an "operational contact" for the agency from 2008 to 2013 and provided information about his contacts with Russian intelligence officers."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 072865001/
All her dishonest BS and minions doing her dirty work got her zip... She lost.
So, let's wait to see what Durham has. Hopefully, he will provide more facts that will tell the entire ugly grift Clinton tried to pull. He has certainly given us two of her flunkies. I think there will be more. I want justice, and for her to live out her life knowing the truth was outed and showed her for the grifter she has been all her life. I mean Trump has been exonerated, but Hillery, her deeds need to be documented for history's sake.'I think Sussmann was sent to do a job --- lie, which he did. " - What makes you think so? What was he sent to lie about? What else, besides the low level FBI lawyer, has Durham found?
So now you are claiming Durham is seeking indictments on Sussmann's former employer Perkin Coie. Funny. In fact, this is what you are grasping at straws about "But now they’ve finally found their culprit (Sussmann)! A lawyer who maybe, kind of, might have worked with the Clinton campaign told the FBI about a cybersecurity issue and didn’t say he was doing so on behalf of the campaign." WOW, what a bombshell revelation!! - NOT
"His lie misled an FBI investigation, " - Exactly how did it do that since they already knew who Sussmann represented? Mountains out of tiny ant hills, I say.
"None of these changes have led to any charges against Trump." - Of course they didn't - I thought you knew Trump couldn't be charged by Mueller. Could THAT be a reason Trump wasn't charged? Maybe now that you know this, you might change your implication. And thanks for making my case about Mueller's important work.
How long must we wait for Durham to come up with anything? Another two years. BTW, the ONLY "grifter" is Trump. "Flunkies" - you certainly have a way of exaggerating to the point of ridiculousness, lol.
The ONLY think Trump, personally, was so-called "exonerated" (a word that Mueller didn't use in the positive sense) from was conspiring with the Russians. Trump's campaign was exonerated from nothing and several were indicted and convicted for wrong doing (which I bet if you did a count, a majority of Trump's close associates have been) FURTHER, Mueller provided clear evidence that Trump is personally guilty of obstruction of justice.
BTW, I never really thought Trump, himself, had conversations with the Russians. But, his campaign certainly colluded with them - Mueller presented a lot of evidence showing that. I do think Trump and Roger Stone conspired to get the Wikileak purloined information released. Since it was the Russians who provided Wikileaks that information, you do have that connection between Trump and Russia.
Hillary Clinton, IMO, was one of the most dedicated, hard working, honest (as a politician can be) public servant that has come around in a long time. You hate her while you love the most vile, corrupt, dishonest (even by political standards) con man to ever hold office.
A last point. I would hope you agree that when a people lose confidence in their nations election system, then democracy has been subverted/destroyed. If so, then why don't you see that Trump is doing (actual has done) just that by convincing a substantial portion of Americans that the free and fair 2020 election was a fraud? You do know he is lying about that don't you? I certainly hope so.I shared my thoughts on the subject, and I clearly feel Durham connecting the two he indited show good proof of Clinton's scam. And the two he indited had good parts in planting the Russia/Trump scandal, that got half the country to believe a lie. That's my opinion. I will wait to see if Durham has any more revelations in his report.
I always knew the Trump/Russia crap was a Clinton grift, it had their MO all over it. Hillary's reputation is there for all to research. I found her dishonest and power-hungry. She was and always was a grifter always in the middle of a scandal.
I never had a problem with the election process, still don't. To each their own... I think there was minor fraud as there is in all elections. I accepted the new president.You still haven't said how you can reach that conclusion (especially since Clinton wasn't running a scam). The low-lever FBI lawyer had nothing to do with Clinton and I serious doubt anybody in the Clinton campaign even knew who Sussmann was.
Hillary has never, ever been a grifter. That is what Trump is good at and to deflect from that reality, you project his personality on to Clinton.
"I never had a problem with the election process, still don't. " - Yes, you have said that and I believe you. Yet, because you won't criticize Trump for his Big Lie and agree that it has destabilized American democracy seems to take the oomph out of your claim. You need to realize that by not pushing back on Trump's Big Lie that drags you in as being part of problem
"Hillary's reputation is there for all to research. I found her dishonest and power-hungry. " - Then I suggest you do that research using reputable sources. How you can claim that Hillary is dishonest and power-hungry and not say the same about Trump is beyond my comprehension."The low-lever FBI lawyer had nothing to do with Clinton and I seriously doubt anybody in the Clinton campaign even knew who Sussmann was."
Think again --- read the indictment. They hired Sussmann. He communicated with the DNC as well as the Clinton campaign. The indictment tells all in a rather short document. Very clear evidence of the Clinton campaign's Russian grift.
Quote -- "29. SUSSMANN billed his meeting with the FBI General Counsel to the Clinton campaign with the billing description, "work and communications regarding the confidential project." Source legal Indictment https://www.justice.gov/sco/pressreleas … 1/download
You can read the facts yourself. And you should before assuming anything of who knew what and when they knew it, and how this bunch concocted a cheat ploy to start such a vile lie. But vile is a word that truly is a great description of Hillary.
Hillary is not a grifter -- that's your opinion, her history shows her knee-deep in crooked deals.
I would think my stating that I supported the election results should make it clear I don't support the claim the election was rigged.
Choosing and supporting a president is no longer easy in America. I supported Trump due to feeling he was doing a good job. I have also said, I wish at this point he was still the president due to his ability to problem solve.
Trump paid for a big part of his campaign, he never took a paycheck, he let his children run his business. I never found him to be power-hungry. I found him wanting to succeed, to me that is a good thing.
In regard to Hillary Clinton, not willing to list all her grifts you know them as well as I do.
More Trumplican rhetoric to instigate a coup. Bannon hides his violent ideas by saying his "shock troops" are bureaucrats and are only to attack after a Trumplican takes over the White House. He knows the proud boys, oath keepers, and 3%ers won't wait.
https://news.yahoo.com/steve-bannon-dou … 54820.htmlIt's very well known that Bannon as a rule offers radical opinions. He has a following. I don't ascribe to his ideologies. Although, I think he has many that do follow him and buy into his agenda.
I hope Trump stays away from him, I feel Bannon is radical, and Trump would lose support if he leans into radical BS.I am glad you reject Bannon but unfortunately for you, it looks like Trump is in bed with Bannon again.
I see The Woose, Pense, has joined the anti-democracy crowd by whitewashing the attempted murder of himself.
I notice that Trump has finally admitted he did a terrible job with his slogan Make America Great - Again meaning he blew it the first time.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/07/politics … index.htmlHe can use "Make America Great Once Again" which showed he had it pretty great and can do it again. Although it may not fit well on a hat. I will be up for a button.
The definition of a coup - Senate Judiciary Committee issues sweeping report detailing how Trump and a top DOJ lawyer attempted to overturn 2020 election
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/07/politics … index.htmlHere is the minorities report -- So much different from The Dem's Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• President Trump listened to his advisors, including high-level DOJ officials and WhiteHouse Counsel, and followed their recommendations.1
• President Trump twice rejected sending Jeffrey Clark’s, the Acting Assistant AttorneyGeneral of the Civil Division, a draft letter recommending to some states with reported voter irregularities that they hold a legislative session to choose different electors.2
• Clark told Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen regarding his draft letter, [t]hese are my ideas,” not the President’s.3
• President Trump accepted Rosen’s recommendations that DOJ not file a draft complaint against some states based on reported voter irregularities and “didn’t resist it or deliver an ultimatum or try to overrule [DOJ].”4
• Donoghue testified that President Trump had “no impact” on DOJ investigative actions relating to the election.5
• President Trump twice rejected firing Rosen.6
• President Trump did not fire anyone at the DOJ or FBI relating to his frustration that more wasn’t done to investigate election-related allegations.7
• President Trump considered Richard Donoghue as Acting Attorney General, Principal Deputy Attorney General, and Rosen’s deputy when Bill Barr resigned.8
• President Trump told Rosen that he did not expect the DOJ to overturn the election.9
• Witnesses testified that they were not pressured by President Trump or the White House to take action with respect to investigating certain election fraud claims.10
• Notes of a phone call between Rosen, Donoghue, and President Trump show that the President expressed concerns centered on “legitimate complaints and reports of crimes” relating to election allegations.11
• Witnesses testified that President Trump’s outreach to DOJ officials focused on making sure they were “aware” of election fraud allegations and that they were doing their job to investigate them, rather than issuing orders to take certain action.12
• President Trump expressed concerns related to the U.S. electoral system writ large rather than concerns about his campaign or himself personally.13
Always nice to see both sides, especially in a Congressional investigation.You mean you are taking the side of the Republicans who whitewash the insurrection? Who say all those injured police "invited" the rioters into the Capitol? Who believe many of those who invaded the Capitol weren't intent on killing politicians? Is it those Republicans who you chose to believe over the real facts? Alrighty then.
"Donoghue testified that President Trump had “no impact” on DOJ investigative actions relating to the election." - That is true - BECAUSE DOJ stood up to Trump's attempts to overthrow the election.
"President Trump did not fire anyone at the DOJ or FBI relating to his frustration that more wasn’t done to investigate election-related allegations.7" = ROFL again. He didn't fire them because Cipollone and a host of DOJ big wigs threatened to resign if Trump carried through with his threat. That would look very bad and Trump hates to look bad. That is why he dropped the idea.
"President Trump told Rosen that he did not expect the DOJ to overturn the election." - I suppose that could be true since Trump told Rosen to "Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me. Why would DOJ need to do it Trump was going to do it himself??
"Witnesses testified that they were not pressured by President Trump " - REALLY? Then why did Cipollone and a host of DOJ officials threaten to resign if they didn't feel pressured? Why did Cipollone say this thing Trump wanted to do was a "murder-suicide pact"? Why would they do/say that if there was no pressure?
"... centered on “legitimate complaints and reports of crimes ...” relating to election" - Which "legitimate" ones do you think they were referring to given there were NO legitimate complaints. Even Giuliani just testified that he had no basis for all of the lies he told about election fraud, LOL
"President Trump expressed concerns related to the U.S. electoral system writ large rather than concerns about his campaign or himself personally.13" - I take it they have been ignoring his rallies where he says exactly the opposite. LOL
"Witnesses testified that President Trump’s outreach to DOJ officials focused on making sure they were “aware” of election fraud allegations and that they were doing their job to investigate them, rather than issuing orders to take certain action.12" - Yep, he did that 9 times! Once where we said to Rosen - "Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me, That certainly sounds like he was just making Rosen "aware", ROFL.The TDS (Trump Demagogue Syndrome) is certainly strong with that one.
It makes no difference to these so-called Republicans that Trump AND THEM have almost brought American democracy to an end. It will only take a slight push now to send America into tyranny and a Trump dictatorship. He is already surrounded by America's equivalents to Himmler, Eichmann, Goebbels, Speer, Hess, etc. The brown shirts are the Proud Boys, 3%ers, Oath Keepers and the like of today. The acquiescent, brainwashed masses in the 1930s are the same type of brainwashed masses who acquiesce today - who say things such as it is a lie that the unvaccinated make up over 90% of the Covid cases and deaths.
The similarities are frighteningly striking.
Your very first sentence shows you applied a false context to my post...
"You mean you are taking the side of the Republicans who whitewash the insurrection? "
Where did I share my opinion on the report? Did I in any respect offer my opinion of the report?
Here is what I said --- Here is the minorities report -- So much different from The Dem's Report. Always nice to see both sides, especially in a Congressional investigation.
Then you once again go on a Trump rampage. All your opinion... I am not willing to speculate anything that occurred on Jan 6th.
The investigation produced much of nothing. Waste of time and money.You presented Grassley's minority report which was a whitewash of the truth. I rest my case.
There is no speculation about the 6th, it was all caught on video.All caught on video...except the part where Trump encouraged a violent riot inside the capital building. Indeed, video caught him doing the exact opposite.
But hey, that isn't important, is it? It's still an "insurrection", fomented by Trump, right? Even though the video shows the opposite - we can just ignore that tiny detail, right?"All caught on video..." - Yes, even that was caught on video. There was much footage from the crowd where you could hear Trump inciting them and them reacting angrily to his "fighting" words. So, no, the video does not show the "exact opposite", That video will used, I am sure, in his trial.
I, too, am pretty sure it will be used at any trial of Trump over causing a riot. By the defense.
20 times he yells at the mob to FIGHT, TO SAVE AMERICA BY FIGHTING. ONE time he quietly suggests they be peaceful. You do the math.
People who live in Trump's fantasy world latch on to the single comment and ignore the 20 exhortations to fight.
People who live in the real world heard the 20 commands to fight and understand what the one "peaceful" comment was for - to give him an out.
Something like that would be part of my closing argument - along with playing to the jury the 20 times Trump told his mob to GO FIGHT and closing with video of the insurrectionists attacking and maiming the police.Better indict nearly all the Democrats in congress, then, for they have surely fought to get Trump removed from politics. Put Pelosi at the top of the list, for she exhorted the entire House to fight Trumps every move.
Are you in one piece, Wilderness? You stretched the truth so far on that one that you might have snapped with the tension.
Pelosi didn't send her representatives to invade the White House now did she? False equivalency big time. (but you knew that).Really? You're maintaining that the Democrats did not fight to remove Trump? After two failed impeachment efforts and years of witch hunt "investigation" they didn't fight, and fight hard?
You're the one that claimed calling to fight was wrong, not I. You just don't like it when the terminology means something other than violence, that's all - that might mean that Trump didn't call for violence when he said fight and it is necessary to believe that he did in order to denigrate him.Can you spell FALSE EQUIVALENCY? Because that is what you are doing, every thinking person knows it.
You're right - every thinking person can recognize the difference between a legal fight and the violence, destruction of the fight of those rioters. Just as they can recognize the difference between Trump's request to fight and the fight that those idiots used in their riot. Every thinking person without a strong bias to turn Trump's words into "incitement to riot" or "insurrection", anyway.
You are not going to win this Wilderness. There is way too much video evidence and statements by the very people he incited to prove you wrong.
And when the prosecution prades witness after witness in front of the jury, each one saying that they were following Trump's call to be there that day and following Trump's inciting words that caused them to storm the Capitol, there is no question in my mind the jury will FINALLY hold Trump accountable.We'll see, won't we? If the prosecution manages to stack the box with jurists that have a bias against Trump, and don't care about the truth, they will certainly convict (wouldn't you?). If not, then reasonable, thinking people will not hold Trump responsible for people doing the exact opposite of what he requested. Your opinion that you can read his mind and know what his secret code is notwithstanding, it takes a huge assumption to decide he meant the crowd to vandalize the building rather than do what he plainly asked for.
Did Trump speak or email, or have any form of one on one contact with any of the people? Trump's not in any respect responsible for anyone else's actions but his own. I hate to burst your bubble, but yes, there was a handful indicted for crimes that occurred at the Jan riot., Trump is not one of them. One needs to be charged before being convicted of a crime.
Plus most of the 650 that were arrested obtained Plea Bargains, and a few will have their day in court with a trial by the judge, no jury at all... Some that committed violence have already had their day in court and goy prison time. So, I would not hold your breath waiting for fo any form of a jury trial or Trump being arrested... I would think by now, you would have learned that conspiracies you have bought into just don't go anywhere because Trump has not done anything to be arrested for.
Oct 11, 2021 --- https://www.lawfareblog.com/are-jan-6-p … oo-lenientUnfortunately if you repeat something often enough one can convict in the court of public opinion. Thus the unending repetitions that Trump is guilty even though he is not. Presumably the same objective as always; keep Trump out of the White House and prevent his objectives contrary to the liberal philosophy from happening. Damage to the country is, as always, secondary to the maintenance of power.
That is true --- But, I say But, don't you think if one has been fooled so so often they would wake up? Trump is going to be indited -- Trump is going to be arrested --- Trump has to be stopped--- Trump Trump Trump Trump... Now, some seem to be holding onto a dream he will be arrested for planning an insurrection.
I mean come on... this kind of behavior is just very unusual, is it not?All we are trying to do is Save America. You are not.
And that would be your opinion... Polls say differently. More American's are very disillusioned with Biden on all counts. That included his policies. You are at this point in the minority. So, maybe not so fair to point the finger at me.
Actually, only the far-right Rasmussen and Trafalgar Group have Biden with a majority of those disapproving of him as of last week. YouGov, Morning Consult, Ipsos, and Redfield & Wilton Strategies all are either even or have Biden with the majority of approval now.
The Democrats stood their ground on the debt ceiling issue where everyone could see McConnell and the GOP were actively trying to sabotage the country in much the same way they have done so in regards to basic safety measures that could have helped prevent and then save American lives during a pandemic.
Every time we hear someone on the right make the dumb claim about Democratic policies ruining America, we just have to laugh when the GOP policies actually lead to death, debt, and freezing any government functionality.October 06, 2021 Left leaning polling --- " More than half of Americans say 55 - 42 percent that the Biden administration is not competent in running the government."
"Americans Give President Biden Lowest Marks Across The Board, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Majority Say The Biden Administration Is Not Competent"
"HANDLING OF ISSUES
Biden received negative scores in the double digits on all but one key issue when Americans were asked about his handling of ...
the response to the coronavirus: 48 percent approve, while 50 percent disapprove;
the economy: 39 percent approve, while 55 percent disapprove;
his job as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military: 37 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove;
taxes: 37 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove;
foreign policy: 34 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove;
immigration issues: 25 percent approve, while 67 percent disapprove;
the situation at the Mexican border: 23 percent approve, while 67 percent disapprove."
cares about average Americans: 49 percent say yes, while 48 percent say no, compared to 58 - 37 percent yes in April;
is honest: 44 percent say yes, while 50 percent say no, compared to 51 - 42 percent yes in April;
has good leadership skills: 41 percent say yes, while 56 percent say no, compared to 52 - 44 percent yes in April.
More than half of Americans say 55 - 42 percent that the Biden administration is not compRoughly 3 in 10 Americans (28 percent) think the U.S. did the right thing by withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan, while 50 percent think the U.S. should have withdrawn some troops from Afghanistan but not all troops, and 15 percent think the U.S. should not have withdrawn any troops from Afghanistan.
SATISFACTION & THE ECONOMY
Roughly one-quarter of Americans (28 percent) say they are either very satisfied (5 percent) or somewhat satisfied (23 percent) with the way things are going in the nation today. Close to three-quarters (72 percent) of Americans say they are either somewhat dissatisfied (24 percent) or very dissatisfied (48 percent) with the way things are going in the nation today. Those levels are largely unchanged from September.
Roughly one-quarter of Americans (29 percent) describe the economy as excellent (2 percent) or good (27 percent), while 69 percent describe it as not so good (35 percent) or poor (34 percent).
COVID-19
Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of Americans say they either have received a COVID-19 vaccine or plan to, while 20 percent say they don't plan to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. This is largely unchanged from a September survey.
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3824
So, not sure any of us when we hear about Democratic policies ruining America, should laugh ... As a Republican, I shutter, and have come to realize Biden is ruining America, and he is doing it at record speed.
The only thing that is laughable is the handful that continues to defend this president's mistakes and his lack of abilities to govern.As always, you lean on one poll that fits all the narratives you believe. Quinnipiac is right online with Trafalgar and Rasmussen, while four other polls have things more level. One that has a sample size of just 1,326 Americans.
Anyone can find one poll that fits their own biases. Like I noted, there are plenty that now have his numbers rising as the Democratic party showed they were willing to set aside petty politics for the good of the country on the debt ceiling. Once the infrastructure bill and social safety net bills get passed, he will get another bump in the polls.
So you go ahead and continue to deny how dangerous the GOP policies of autocracy, death, and debt are for the nation. When you need to put Trump up again as your party's nominee, the 81 million of us that see him as the greatest threat to the nation will rise up again and send him back to his own false realities again.Quinnipiac is among the more credible non-partisan polls. FiveThirtyEight rates them as an A-minus pollster.[1] It’s important to note that this rating is based on their Presidential polls, but presumably, they use similar methodologies in all their polls.
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article … 603587.php
Send him back? If there was a redo of the election today... Trump would win with most likely one of the biggest majority in our history.
Biden has daily fires and has not put one out. I have never witnessed a president that was so over his head.A redo? People may not be happy with Biden's performance to date, but don't kid yourself that a president that ended his term with 62% of the country disapproving of him would be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office again. Especially when that person is touring the country living in an alternate reality that he believes he actually won in 2020 and helped organize and incite a domestic terror attack against our own Capitol.
You never witnessed a president that was so over his head? We all saw one from January 2017 until January 2021. $7.8 trillion in debt. 400,000 dead Americans. Allies completely alienated, even abandoned as what was done with the Kurds and Afghans. Hate crimes up, murders up, racial protests in near record numbers. Infrastructure - flip flopped like a fish, then scuttled completely by Trump's bruised ego. If ignoring the daily fires is what you prefer, Trump is your guy. Denies climate change, denies systemic racism, denies deficits exist.
Biden's fires - the border. Always been a fire, the only reason one can say Trump had it under control was that he failed to act on a deadly pandemic and no one wanted to come to one of the the worst countries in the world for responses. Inflation - much of that is due to damaged supply chains and the printing of nearly 30% of all US currency in 2020, all of which happened prior to his election. Murder rates - began under Trump and Biden has lowered the overall totals, even if some cities still remain at heightened levels. Afghanistan - plenty of culpability to go around there, but Biden made the tough call to get us out.
Seem you are predicting, and have your hopes up due to a bandaid proposed raising of the debt ceiling. Which has not as yet been voted on, and will be voted on I think later today.
I in no respect feel both bills will pass.. Maybe the infrastructure bill.
In regard to the polls, he is tanked in the majority. I will stick with Quinnipiac, they are highly rated.
No, that is my observations. Your reference to polls is a deflection because they are not measuring what I observed.
What I observe, and the polls do back me up on this, is that Trump and the Republicans are doing whatever they can to weaken or destroy American democracy - that is simply a fact (unless you think the Big Lie is the truth, then your position makes sense). They have to do that in order to be successful with their Big Lie and Slow Moving Coup
It makes sense then that those of us who oppose the coup attempt and the Big Lie are trying to save America. Because you support Trump, that means you are not." Your reference to polls is a deflection because they are not measuring what I observed."
Oh forgot your view is the only one that one should consider. I have derived part of my opinion due to several polls. Not willing to just go it alone as you do. I think it prudent to gather other options via polls. and as I said --- Polls at this point disagree with your view, you are in the minority. More American's are very disillusioned with Biden on all counts.
'What I observe, and the polls do back me up on this, is that Trump and the Republicans are doing whatever they can to weaken or destroy American democracy "
What polls did you view to give you this view?
"It makes sense then that those of us who oppose the coup attempt and the Big Lie are trying to save America. Because you support Trump, that means you are not."
Again your opinion --- I have supported Trump's job performance while president. At this point, he has not announced that he will even run. I can clearly tell you I will be supporting any Republican on the ticket in 2024. I am long done with Democrats. They have nothing whatsoever that meets my standards of what I envision for America in the future.
Kathryn, I will agree with you this far many are being complacent and ignoring what we see daily from this administration. However, the problems such as inflation showing up in all our budgets, Federal overreach in regard to dictating what our children's education consists of, and mandating the vaccine, and open borders -- are being noted and complained loudly about all I mentioned and more. It is my hope in 2022 we take back the Congress.
"Unfortunately if you repeat something often enough one can convict in the court of public opinion. " - Yes, that is true - just look at what Trump is doing - he is proof in the pudding
And yes, Trump is guilty, anybody that isn't under his spell can see that.After he is indicted. When will he be indicted? When the investigations are over and the prosecutors are ready.
He will not be indicted... He will not be charged with anything. He will once again have a bunch of nothing accusations aimed at him --- food for those that need it. One would think you would give up on your hopes of Trump being arrested.
"... form of one on one contact with any of the people?" - And why is "one-on-one" interaction needed? I don't understand.
"Trump's not in any respect responsible for anyone else's actions but his own. " - Unfortunately for you, the law does not agree with that. It recognizes that in certain circumstances, one person can illegally influence another to commit a crime. To wit: "the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully."
What are the elements of proof for incitement? (Brandenburg Test)
1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,”
2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Personally, I think both of those elements can be proved in court. So you see, Trump can be responsible for other's behavior besides his own.
You have a strange perspective of size - a handful? Really?, LOL
Charged? Just wait, he will be.
There you go trying to mislead again. 92 (probably a few more by now) is NOT most btw.
Also, I could only find one article that said an insurrectionist has been sentenced to jail for a non-violent felony. So, nice try.
"Trump has not done anything to be arrested for." - Then why are so many jurisdictions investigating him? For the fun of it? You know the old saying, where there is smoke ...
And yes, I think the insurrectionists are being treated too leniently.I would think if someone is a mastermind and planning a riot or an insurrection one must step up --- be in some form of contact, give orders...
So, Did Trump speak or email, or have any form of one on one contact with any of the people?
What do you have in mind? How did he mastermind this riot? Was it all whistleblowing, some form of mind control? This conversation has taken such a ridiculous turn. Hey, I offered you a link, most all have been dealt with, a few got prison time most got plea bargains.
I would think by now, you would have learned that conspiracies you have bought into just don't go anywhere because Trump has not done anything to be arrested for."I would think if someone is a mastermind and planning a riot or an insurrection one must step up --- be in some form of contact, give orders..." - [i[Why is that necessary when Trump has his personal megaphone to speak to all of his mob at the same time? And how do you know others in his administration didn't do something like that? Isn't that what the Jan 6th commision is trying to find out?[/i]
The FBI and DOJ are conducting investigations into Jan 6th. They have not indicted Trump as of yet. The Congress has no power to charge and indite...
I in no way feel Trump in any fashion seeking or was asking anyone to commit violence. This is my view is rediculous.
Yes, I presented Senator Grassley's report he sat on the committee and reported his findings. Not sure why you dismiss them? I respect his findings. I can't believe you feel your opinion overrides anyone you disagree with, and you have the audacity to say -- 'I rest my case".
As I said the investigation produced nothing. And this was a waste of money. The FBI and DOJ are conducting investigations on the Jan 6 riot. I will stick with what they come up with --- they have indicted some citizens and they will have their day in court. Guess we will see where that goes. They have not indicted Trump unless I missed something. And they never will...
They have it all on video, every word... Like when the President said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,""Not sure why you dismiss them? " - I dismiss them because they are contrary to the facts. In order to support a Trump-apologist narrative, he (they) cherry-picked pieces of information, took them out of context, and just plain misrepresented the facts of the matter.
"They have it all on video, every word... " - [i]Yet you missed, or dismiss, the 20 times he used the "fight" or variations of "fight" during that same speech you so carefully listened to that inflamed is mob when put in context with other hot button words to make those listening to him even more angry. He knew exactly what he was doing - but yet you attempt whitewash and minimize what he did.
"The FBI and DOJ are conducting investigations on the Jan 6 riot." - [/i]What has that got to do with anything. They aren't investigating the same thing, their investigation is very focused on the insurrectionists and NOT what got them there. They are not investigating the root cause of the insurrection. That is what the Jan 6 Commission is all about.[/i]
Here is a great example of how Republicans and their apologists minimize the truth by changing the context:
In reference to this "innocent" statement from above - "President Trump told Rosen that he did not expect the DOJ to overturn the election."
Here is what Grassley was referring to - According to Rosen, Trump opened the meeting by saying, “One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren’t going to do anything to overturn the election.” Over the course of the next three hours, the group had what Donoghue called “a wide-ranging conversation” focused on whether Trump should replace DOJ’s leadership,
Here is what that REALLY means, and it isn't Grassley and his believers fantasy version: Trump was CLEARLY being sarcastic when he said "One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren’t going to do anything to overturn the election. Why do we know this, because they immediately started talking about replacing Rosen because he refused to do Trump's bidding in overturning the election.
This has nothing to do with Trump's slow moving coup, but I wanted to put it out here anyway as food for thought for parents whose school lack of Covid policies got their children sick or dead.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/11/us/wisco … index.htmlOthers on this forum would say "many" Republicans, others would exaggerate, like the headline does, and say "some" Republicans, but I will say Two in the news Republicans urge their fellow, unbrainwashed, brethren and sisteren to vote for moderate Democrats in 2022 in order to put a stop to [b]Trump's slow moving Coup".
https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-off … 22-2021-10More damning information on Trump's Slow Moving Coup
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/12/politics … index.htmlEven more information on Trump's Slow Moving Coup
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/13/politics … index.htmlThis is a current problem that will affect Biden's presidency. And one that I am sure you would be interested in. You have exhibited an interest in crime that presidents' are involved in. This involves our current President. And certainly shows a possible crime. It is very promising that the FBI and DOJ will get to the bottom of these ongoing accusations about the president and his son Hunter Biden. I can't imagine if this story was about Trump and one of his children... This is what I was referring to the other day when I claimed one needs evidence, physical evidence, emails, one on one conversations, documents that can be used to convict one of a crime. So far I have not seen any evidence that Trump planned an insurrection. But, Biden and Hunter, there is now an ever-growing trail of documents that could be used as evidence to show possible money laundering between dad and son. I would assume you do not approve of this form of criminal activity. Or should we give Biden and Hunter the same benefit of the doubt as I offer Trump?
IN HOT WATER: New emails uncovered show Joe Biden shared a bank account with scandal-laden son Hunter Biden
Emails obtained by DailyMail.com from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop show that his business partner, Eric Schwerin, was working on Joe Biden’s tax returns and discussing the father and son paying each other’s bills.
Additionally, the emails show that Schwerin fielded book deal requests for Joe Biden, who was vice-president at the time and also managed the donation of Biden’s Senate papers to the University of Delaware.
Hunter Biden has claimed that he and his father shared a bank account and admitted last year that he was under federal investigation over his taxes.
Emails show that on April 9, 2010, Schwerin wrote to Hunter: "I was dealing all afternoon with JRB's taxes (but solved a big issue - so it was all worth it)."
On June 10 of the same year, Schwerin wrote, "Your Dad's Delaware tax refund check came today. I am depositing it in his account and writing a check in that amount back to you since he owes it to you. Don't think I need to run it by him, but if you want to go ahead. If not, I will deposit tomorrow."
It is unknown what specifically Joe Biden owed Hunter money for.
An expert on money laundering and criminal tax law told DailyMail.com that those entanglements could drag the current president into the FBI’s investigation.
"Whatever transaction you're looking at, if there's a connection to a family member or a friend, sure the answer is yes [they would be investigated]," the expert, a former federal prosecutor who requested not to be named, told DailyMail.com. "Obviously, if you're talking about the President of the United States, you'd better have a pretty damn good reason to talk to that person."
The FBI and IRS are reportedly also investigating Hunter Biden’s business relationships and the possibility that money laundering charges are in order.
Another expert, former U.S. Intelligence Officer and Treasury Special Agent John Cassara, told DailyMail.com that President Biden would already be in the crosshairs if not for the fact that he’s the president.
"The information available publicly is very worrisome, particularly in the areas of corruption," Cassara said. "They could go at this from all different avenues. Follow the corruption trail and then charge money laundering."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-bi … ter-reportWHAT "ongoing accusations about the president AND his son Hunter Biden."? - seems to me you are exaggerating again. Now if you had left it at Hunter, then you would have been believable. Not no, you had to stretch credibility by bringing the president into it.
You got all of that out of Fake Fox News and Fake Daily Mail? When you provide a creditable source, I will read it.
It simply amazes me how blind Trumpers are to what he is trying to do. SAD.You have a short memory... LOL, You have accused Trump and his children of numerous crimes. And you take about fake news... The emails are displayed. One would think Hunter would stop losing laptops.
Give me a legitimate source - CNN, CBS, BBC, NPR etc - that presents the story in the same way that Fox and Daily Mail do.
It would seem to be a true account due to the documents that Fox presented. These give very good evidence of the accusation. As of yet, I have heard no statements from anyone involved denying the emails are legitimate.
I suggest you read and view all the various emails that are posted on --- Very incriminating... Tapes, and videos as well as emails that were on Hunter's laptop...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … probe.html
ABC News --- https://wset.com/news/nation-world/emai … nk-account
Politico -- https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … ion-515583I looked into the claims about Hunter Biden brokering deals based on his father's name. There is smoke there.
As to the latest about sharing a bank account and setting up legal book deals, I think that is the latest fabricated 'scandal' from the far-right.I see smoke, and after reading the emails more smoke. But I trust the FBI will do a complete investigation and have all this leaked info. The article goes astray when it uses words like A former federal prosecutor.
At this point, he is also being investigated in Delaware for his taxes.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/1 … tor-499782
This will be an interesting story to watch. But at this point, Hunter has not been charged with anything at all.
Fox and Daily Mail (and Brietbart and OANN) are known to misrepresent facts and, in some cases, fabricate them. That is why I don't believe a word they say, they no credibility or veracity left.
I did read, however, the Politico article last night and found it interesting.
First, let me say that over time, I have come to believe Hunter Biden as the same problem Trump does with ethics and morality. They both walk on the shady side of the street. Also, both are under investigation for potentially criminal behavior and both may ultimately be held accountable. The only difference, at this point in time, is Hunter's crimes are less obvious than Trump's - that may change however.
Here is what I picked up out of the Politico article:
And it was unclear what to make of the alleged leak of material from Hunter Biden’s laptop, especially after social media companies moved to restrict access to the story and a bevy of former U.S. intelligence officials dismissed it as likely “Russian disinformation.”
Followed by -
That may be changing. Along with new evidence that at least some of the alleged laptop material is genuine
After all, concerns about money influencing politics have traditionally animated liberals more than conservatives.
Biden’s relatives have denied allegations of wrongdoing, and none have been accused of criminal misdeeds related to their business dealings. - which means, according to you, they are innocent as lambs in the driven snow, just as you claim Trump is. But like with Trump, I don't buy that. When there is a lot of smoke, there is almost certainly fire. Right now I don't know how much smoke there is with relatives of Biden, but there is a blinding amount of it surrounding Trump. That said, if the smoke thickens around Hunter or any of the other relatives, then they need to be indicted and prosecuted just like Trump should be.
That said, here is some of the Biden family smoke But in recent decades, members of the First Family, including Hunter Biden, have repeatedly entered into financial relationships with people who have an interest in influencing their powerful relative
More smoke [i[Several former business contacts have also accused Biden relatives of explicitly invoking their political clout to advance their business interests, charges that members of the family have denied. [/i]
and
And since 2007, several of their business associates have been convicted of federal fraud or corruption charges, though no members of the First Family have been implicated in those crimes. - Sort of reminds you have Trump, doesn't it (save the implicated part - Trump is implicated in some of the crimes his lawyer was convicted of)
Much more smoke was offered with this conclusion:
“Even though this administration isn’t corrupt on the same level as the previous administration, which seemed to embrace the corruption,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor and government ethics expert at Washington University in St. Louis, “the public has reason to be concerned.”
Why are some Conservative lawmakers talking secession and civil war like they did back in the 1850s?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … dn-vpx.cnnI see that the DOJ finally agreed that Trump's firing of FBI agent Andrew McCabe (via his flunky Jeff Sessions) was wrong and unwarranted. McCabe has been exonerated, his record wiped clean, and '"reinstated" into the FBI so that he could properly retire.
That is what a REAL exoneration looks like and not the fake one the Right says Mueller gave Trump (even though he explicitly said he wasn't)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/14/politics … index.htmlAs part of the rancid atmosphere left by Trump's rhetoric we have his supporters driving school board members out of their elected jobs. Typical of Trumpers isn't it?
https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/202 … ation.html
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/202110 … harassment
https://www.tampabay.com/news/education … -harassed/
Oh, then there is this: This very unChristian school tells vaccinated students to stay home. The parents should do the right thing and enroll their vaccinated kids in public schools and get out from under Christians who wish to do them harm.
https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/healt … e26dbd0478
This is what Trump has done to AmericaNo, this is what you claim Trump has done to America.
In fact, this is what liberals have done to America with every increasing rules and "guidance" on how we must live to fit into their vision of the future; how to be a good, obedient, part of the vast nanny state we are becoming.
It is possible that Trump opened eyes as to just what, and how, liberals are accomplishing this, but in event it is liberals that are doing it, and this stupidity is purely backlash to that nanny state that requires all people to accept the same "guidance" from liberals that know so much better than we do how we should live.Well damn, I'm getting some popcorn.
GA :-OWhile eating that popcorn, we can all wonder why taking a vaccine to avoid dying from a deadly virus makes one part of the 'nanny' state.
Well, if we would just do what we were told we wouldn't have to wonder. Easy-peasy.
GAOr if people would use the brain God gave them to reason their way through issues rather than using it as a paperweight, we wouldn't be in this sorry state either.
Nope, no "claim" about it. All roads of America's current malaise lead to Trump. Before Trump, we never had the level of division in America as we do now, at least since the 1900s.
Oh your "nanny state" obsession is so much hogwash. America is so far from being a "nanny state" you can't even see the beginning of it. I know you are upset that Social Darwinism isn't the be all and end all in America, but that is not what we were founded on. We left England to get away from your kind of society, after all. That is why "provide for the General Welfare" is part of the reason we have a Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is your kind of "survival of the fittest" society even alluded to."All roads of America's current malaise lead to Trump."
Or course they do. Like the 20 million illegal aliens residing in our country, that Biden has declared can stay here in violation of our laws...all because of Trump.
Like the fiasco in Afghanistan...it is obvious that Trump started the war and that he bungled the withdrawal. Both without sitting in the White House.
Like the frozen congress, unable to pass the desperately needed infrastructure bill, without having to pass the biggest spending bill in the history of the world that Democrats demand as a prerequisite...Caused by Trump as a bystander.
Yep. All our problems caused by Trump.
"That is why "provide for the General Welfare" is part of the reason we have a Constitution."
You're absolutely right...as long as "general welfare" means some specific individuals but not everyone. While you obviously interpret it that way, I do not believe that is what the framers of our Constitution had in mind.You sure do live in your own alternate reality of misunderstanding the issues.
Passing a law to give a 5-year pathway to citizenship that includes background checks, paying taxes, and a few other requirements sounds like something that will actually help the economy.
I guess you missed the part where Trump made some decisions pertaining to the Afghanistan withdrawal before he left office. Some of those decisions clearly helped create the chaos that enveloped that country before we had finished our withdrawal. Try and convince anyone that it was a smart move to draw down the troops before we had evacuated our people.
Not sure I'd call a congress that is debating the issues while passing a bill that has a means to pay for itself frozen.
And if we're going by what the framers had in mind, women and black people shouldn't be voting. Time to evolve a bit from what the framers wanted to what is humane.The 20 million you refer to are not part of the American malaise. They are part of a good economy.
No Trump did not start the war but he DID take part in the withdrawal debacle. The ONLY way Biden could have avoided the outcome we saw was to put the troops Trump pulled out, back in to prevent the Afghan military from crumbling.
The Congress was JUST AS frozen under Trump."The 20 million you refer to are not part of the American malaise. They are part of a good economy."
Of course they are. You just keep telling yourself that. And then explain how magnificent it would be to take in another 300 million uneducated, unskilled people for the American public to care for. Just think of what an economy we would have! It would dwarf even China!
(At least it would for the year or so it would take for the country to go bankrupt trying to support all those people that cannot support themselves in this strange country.)
The one-man crime wave is under a new investigation. This time Weschester County is investigating Trump for illegally avoiding taxes.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/20/politics … index.html
I wonder if 2022 - 2024 will be spent watch Trump sit in the defendant's chair?"They" will be investigating Trump until the day he has either served his 8 years in the White House OR he makes a (believable) claim he will never run again.
Until then Democrats will "investigate" him for anything and everything their twisted, evil minds can come up with. It is, and always has been, about eliminating a political rival that threatens the power of the party.Spoken like a true sycophant oblivious to reality.
When do YOU think they will stop, given that Trump is free from prison and still might run? 20 years? 30?
Surely you don't think they will stop coming up with new "reasons" tomorrow!
There is a reason for that WIlderness. He will never stop doing things that need investigating. It is not in his DNA to be honest about anything.
Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger plus 7 other patriotic Republicans voted to hold Steve Bannon accountable for his crimes.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/21/politics … index.htmlHow ironic! TX Lt Gov Patrick promised pay up to $1,000,000 to anyone -i]"to incentivize, encourage and reward people to come forward and report voter fraud."[/i]
He just paid out his first $25,000 to PA Democrat who caught a Republican trying to vote twice.
To date, as far as I have heard, only Republicans have been caught trying to cheat.
Does that mean all of these voter suppression laws designed to eliminate Republican cheating might actually suppress the Republican vote?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics … index.htmlFacebook claims the Capitol protests were organized online. "We know this was organized online. We know that," she (Facebook's COO) said in an interview with Reuters. "We... took down QAnon, Proud Boys, Stop the Steal, anything that was talking about possible violence last week.
But internal Facebook (FB) documents reviewed by CNN suggest otherwise. The documents, including an internal post-mortem and one document showing in real time countermeasures Facebook employees were belatedly implementing, paint a picture of a company that was in fact fundamentally unprepared for how the Stop the Steal movement used its platform to organize, and that only truly swung into action after the movement had turned violent.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/business … index.htmlWe now know some of the things Trump is trying to hide from the American people in order to protect himself from criminal involvement in the Jan 6th insurrection.
An act prosecutors reminded us was the first successful impediment to the peaceful transfer of power in America since the Civil War - something Trumpers don't see as a necessity in a functioning democracy.
Keep in mind as you read this list, executive privilege doesn't extend covering up a crime.
In the more than 700 pages of documents Trump is attempting to hide are:
- Handwritten notes, draft documents, and daily logs his top advisers kept relating to Jan 6
- Memos from Meadows about Jan 6 call logs of Trump and Pence
- White House visitors' records
- Working papers from Meadows, the press secretary, and WH lawyer regarding Trump's efforts to undermine the 2020 election.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/30/politics … index.htmlJust another "hey look over here trump is causing trouble" Don't look at Biden and all the crisis he is in the middle of"... Another hold your breath "IF COME". Nothing to see here another grift Dem's investigation. For my money, all their crazy crap has them need deep.in failed accusation in regard to Trump. Most Americans are aware of this. I look at the Dem Party as a bunch of lackluster grifters. In the eyes of many American's they look very foolish promoting this kind of no there - there investigations. 2022 will show how disillusioned Americans are with the Democratic party. Gosh, it would seem they would change their course...
Let's face it if there were any incriminating documents they would have met a shredder. But you can keep hoping. Why do you continue to buy into --- accuse someone of a crime, then try to find a crime? This is unfair, and --unAmerican - But that's how I view the Democrats, unAmerican.It is sad to see you care so little about the safety of our democracy. Sad indeed. We have the first non-peaceful transfer of power since the Civil War and it rolls off your back as if it were, how does your side put it, a walk in the park.
All you do is deflect from the real problems America is facing by conjuring up this scary image of a country in sharp decline under Biden. But I look around me and I don't see the country falling apart. I don't see much of a problem at the border today, hell, it has been out of the news since that Haitian thing.
I do see that America has some issues, but nothing good legislation couldn't take care of.
- Voter suppression by Republicans is an issue that must be solved
- Physical infrastructure must be solved and as it stands now, probably will be
- Social infrastructure is a problem that must be solved and it seems like that is coming to fruition now (if only Jayapal would get out of the way - Right now she is the best friend the Republicans have)
- Climate change is an existential threat to America and world, just above the existential threat Trump poses to America That must be solved now or solving all of the others will be pointless.
- I see Biden solved another problem today that was left over by Trump - his destructive (to America) tariffs he placed on our allies.
"Why do you continue to buy into --- accuse someone of a crime, then try to find a crime?" - You Really don't get it do you? You appear to have been so fully consumed by the Big Lie that you now imply there was no crime was committed on Jan 6th, that there is zero evidence of a coup, of an insurrection. Well the evidence has been in your face since June 2020. The American way, since you have forgotten, is if you see evidence of a crime then you investigate it to find out who is involved (which is what the Committee is doing). If the evidence points to particular individuals, then you charge them.
Your position seems to be "I don't want Trump to be guilty, so leave my hero the hell alone". - THAT is unAmericanI care about democracy, I personally do not see this new administration respecting democracy in any respect. I in no respect did I condone the riot at the capitol or support the violence that occurred that day. I support the right to protest, be it the Capitol or the corner store.
In my view --The country is in sharp decline under Biden. I look around me and see the country falling apart. In regards to BBB Social infrastructure, you do not have any idea of what all is in the bill as of today that bill has not been presented to the public. So, I am not ready to support something I know nothing about... Sad to say that would be you.
I have said repeatedly, ( yet you continue to ignore it.) I did not and do not support the big lie... Period.
And you have made my point -- If there is evidence of a crime you charge the person. You don't ride the hell out of a person just because
you can...
As I have said time and time again --- let me know if Trump is charged. Then we will have something factual to discuss. I think what's sad is that you are so enthralled with Trump, constantly dwelling on media rhetoric about possible crimes he might have committed
My position is - I have no intention of accusing someone of a crime, then trying to find evidence of that crime? I consider that slander is a crime, and can be proved easily with the evidence of the untrue word spread needlessly to slander a person's character. I consider this purposeful slander dishonest, abhorrent. I am not, and never will go along with accusing or even insinuating someone committed a crime without actual evidence.
Like I said let me know when Trump is arrested.
The noose tightens a little bit more around Trump's neck (maybe the same one he wanted to put around Pence's) for his role in the Jan 6 coup as his records get nearer to being released to the House Select Committee.
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/10/politics/ … index.html
Another insurrectionist will be sentenced next week, possibly to 4+ years for his part in Trump's coup.
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/10/politics/ … index.htmlGosh, our jails will be full of our politicians. Hopefully, you are keeping up with all that Durham is doing. I think Hillary's bunch will take up an entire wing of a federal prison. I would think Biden may pardon the Clinton's, and Obama... But who really knows?
I think Durham will finally get to the bottom of the Clinton Hoax. And You will finally be able to see some real charges come out of the DOJ, and it won't be Trump. But you can hope. Although physical evidence is the key, which there is none in regards to Trump planning an insurrection. But the Russian hoax, Durham has a load of physical evidence and has indicted three lackeys, that will in no respect take a bullet for whoever masterminded the Russian hoax. Last I heard no one has been indicted for an insurrection? It is clear 691 people have been charged in the Capitol riot, but Trump is not one of them.
You can always hope.Clinton hoax? Like Manafort did not share internal polling data with Russian Intelligence. So many alternate realities for those on the right. So much whitewashing of treasonous action from their own political party.
Manafort? He has nothing to do with the Durham case. He has been charged and sentenced, old news. I do not seek to whitewash his crimes, our courts proceeded accordingly, and he was convicted. (Verdict. On August 21, their fourth day of deliberation, the jury found Manafort guilty ONLY 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges.) As you see he was not convicted of anything to do with sharing internal polling data with Russian Intelligence. The allegation of internal polling data with Russian Intelligence was never proven or was he charged with for sharing internal polling data with Russian Intelligence.)
The Durham investigation is current, and it certainly will be interesting to follow, and see what happens in our courts in regard to the three that have been indicted, and to see where this all goes. Hopefully, my comment to ESO gave any false information.Like I said, an attempted whitewashing. You call it a hoax, and then ignore the finding that Manafort, while Trump Campaign Chairman, was directly colluding with the Russians. This was found after he was sentenced for his other crimes.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/18/90351264 … ith-russia
No matter what the Durham investigation concludes, it will never change the facts that members of Trump's campaign were colluding with Russian Intelligence. Hence, not a hoax at all."Senate report concludes." The facts confirm Manafort was not charged with colluding with Russia. It matters little what a Senate commit concluded. It was not enough to charge Manafort with any Russian collusion. That is a serious claim, and if it could be proved, I am confident that Manafort would have been charged. If not by Barr then Garland. I have to consider fact's conspiracies are what keep us all divided. Trump has not as of yet been charged with any crimes, yet he is continually slandered by some claiming he committed crimes.
In the Durham case we have three arrests, let's see how it all played out. Both the DOJ, and the FBI are cooperating with Durham's investigation, and don't forget the Biden DOJ gave all three indictments. I would think there is some there - there. These three would not have been charged without evidence of crimes. At this point, it's a wait-and-see. However, I think Durham is unraveling a very big crime. Just my view.
Really? Which ones (Republican or Democrat) have been charged with treason? Or is that just yet another over the top exaggeration on your part?
(As Sharlee points out, Manafort was not convicted of anything but mundane tax fraud and the like: nothing approaching treason or any other "political" crime.)Did I say anyone was charged with treason or is that you just changing words again? Something you do so often that it remains why I do not wish to converse with you.
It does not surprise me that you would not see colluding with a hostile foreign government to influence elections as a treasonous action. I, personally, do. Nor do you apparently see an attack on our Capitol with the intent to stop the peaceful transfer of power as treasonous action, but I certainly do.
Your views are why I remain a single issue voter against any and all GOP that will try and whitewash those events as acceptable.Come on -- you did say this ---Clinton hoax? Like Manafort did not share internal polling data with Russian Intelligence. So many alternate realities for those on the right. So much whitewashing of treasonous action from their own political party."
The context in my opinion points to you referring to Manafort.Yes - and then I noted this -
Did I say anyone was charged with treason or is that you just changing words again? Something you do so often that it remains why I do not wish to converse with you.
It does not surprise me that you would not see colluding with a hostile foreign government to influence elections as a treasonous action. I, personally, do. Nor do you apparently see an attack on our Capitol with the intent to stop the peaceful transfer of power as treasonous action, but I certainly do.
And above, your denial that Manafort did collude after a bipartisan group in the Senate proved it and reported it out publicly is you choosing to live in one of those alternate realities that allows you to ignore that your candidate's campaign did actually conspire with our enemies just to gain power.I just hope to keep to facts. In my view as a society, we are more apt to move away from facts. This is dangerous IMO, and one can see the results of this form of mindset is causing a huge divide in our society.
I did not find the Jan 6 riot treasonous, in any respect. I found it to be a bunch of people protesting the election, and ultimately causing havoc at the people's house.
"Gosh, our jails will be full of our politicians." - Yes, and most of them Trumpers
As to Durham, let's take a look at your exageration.
- One low-level FBI lawyer with no connection to Clinton or the Democratic party fudges an email. He pleaded guilty.
- Sussman, a cybersecurity lawyer, who may or may not have told the FBI he didn't represent Clinton was indicted for lying to the FBI about that. I know you have already convicted him in your mind, after reading the details of the issue, I seriously doubt he will be found guilty if it goes to trieal.
- Danchenco, a source for certain allegations in the Steele dossier (which was NOT used as a basis to OPEN the investigation into the Trump campaigns collusion with the Russians) is accused of lying to the FBI by saying he had not discussed the dossier with an unnamed U.S.-based public relations executive. He has pleaded Not Guilty as well.
BOY, that is heady stuff, especially when compared to the many indictments, guilty pleas, and guilty verdicts that Mueller obtained along with solid evidence of Trump's obstruction of justice.
To say you claim is a gross exaggeration, is a gross understatement, lol.Here are all that Meuller indited, none of which implicated Trump... Sorry about that but just the truth. Lots of conspiracy theories but no there -there. All a bunch of nothing.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … grand-jury
Durham has indited three people that are were high up in the Clinton Campaign. I feel he will lay out the entire crime this entire bunch committed to including Hillary Clinton. I am confident about my perdiction.
I have always claimed I have good faith in Durham, his reputation preseeds him. Plus, he would be nuts not to retire his career with a huge bang. He will go down in history for bringing the Clinton's into the full light. And it is way over due.
I liked this quote from an opinion piece about the TRUTH catching up with the greatest political con man in US history - Trump
"Altogether, the picture suggests that the realities of government are catching up to one of the most creative escape artists ever seen in American politics. The truth is out there. It's coming soon."Gosh, I hope you are not holding your breath... Do you realize how many years you have been completely obsessed with Trump?
Do you care about anything else of a political nature?Since he threatens the very democracy we live in and keeps America on verge of losing it - NO, because there is nothing more important to me than keeping it. I wish the same were true for you, but obviously not.
WOW. In my view, we have a president at this point that hopes to usher in marxism. Guess we have a different opinion of the vision we have for America. Thank God polls show the majority are not buying what Biden or whoever is pulling his strings is selling. Nothing can predict what people are feeling than a T-shirt --- Let's Go, Brandon!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … joe-merch/
And I am in full support of Democracy, no it's not the "new form of Democracy of your choice" which is at this point I truly believe is marxism.
Thank God Americans are now waking up and seeing the fraud the media and this new administration are dishing up. I have said for months --- I had faith they would.Trump is fighting to expose the corrupt Democratic party, and doing a great job at it. He is willing to fight them without any fear and is fighting to keep our democracy intact. I can't believe he is taking on this corrupt bunch, but I am thankful he is. I must smile, to see the discomfort he causes the crooks in Washington.
"TRUTH catching up with the greatest political con man in US history" -Dear that would be the Clinton's.
This insightful opinion piece on the collapse of #American #democracy as seen by someone from an authoritarian country is worth the read.
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/12/opinions/ … index.htmlWhile not directly related to Trump's coup attempt, this exemplifies how he endangered your and every other American's life by lying about or downplaying the dangers of the pandemic.
Yet there are those that unfathomably still support him.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/12/politics … index.htmlWhy have more now died on Biden's time? Did not Trump leave him three vaccines? Why did other world leaders fail so badly in stopping the spread? Were they all inept as you choose to believe Trump is? How many more will die under Biden? He waited too long to take action... He has been in the WH since Jan 21. He is not able to solve any of America's problems and they are growing as he worries about BBB.
Which today it was reported Joe lied about only thoughts making over $400,000 would be paying more taxes. It turns out 30% of the Middle class will be affected, and those making over a million with get a huge break on taxes. He lied once again. Sounds like the "you can keep your doctor " lie. I for one am glad so many American's are stepping up and admitting Biden can't do the job. Polls get worse weekly, even after he got the infrastructure bill passed. Now economists feel this bill will cause more inflation. Like I said every day a problem with this guy.
And yes, I can see where Trump could win in 2024. So many at this point say if they could do it all over, Trump would win today.
Here are some articles about losing our democracy that, because of Trump's attempting to destroy it, had to be written:
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/08/opinions/ … index.html
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/11/opinions/ … index.html
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/13/opinions/ … index.html
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/08/opinions/ … index.html
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/10/opinions/ … index.html
Millions of brainwashed or apathetic Americans are helping Trump kill American democracy by actively supporting his efforts to do so or by sticking their head in the sand hoping he will go away (he won't until he has either succeeded in destroying democracy or he is in jail) or by pretending he is not the evil man he has proven to be.But the topic was "Millions of brainwashed or apathetic Americans", right?
Yes, so ironic, and really makes one realize how wonderful a gift of a clear mind can be.
CNN ratings speak loudly, one does not need to say much more.I wish Trumpers had a clear mind, but alas, they have proved over and over again that they don't.
Since you misread the ratings, your comment doesn't have any merit.
To do an honest job of it, you need to compared all of the mainstream news outlets and with all of the right-wing propaganda outlets. The MSN comes out far ahead.
What has CNN have to do with anything. Unlike Fox, Brietbart, and the rest, they don't fabricate anything. Anyway, I figured you deflect because you can't take the truth.
""It is so sad when things like this can happen, but so incredibly important to fight for the truth and justice. Only victory can restore one’s reputation."
— Former President Trump"
Though you might be interested in this... Trump gets 2 court wins: 'Apprentice' contestant's lawsuit dropped, Cohen case dismissed
Trump claimed he was 'totally vindicated' by Summer Zervos' decision to drop her case against him.
"Friday seemed a successful day in court for former President Donald Trump – with one lawsuit against him withdrawn by the complainant and another dismissed by a judge, according to reports.
In the first case, Summer Zervos, a former contestant on "The Apprentice," ended her 2017 lawsuit against Trump in which she accused the show’s former host of sexually assaulting her.
In the second case, a New York state judge dismissed a 2019 lawsuit brought by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, in which Cohen sought $1.9 million from Trump to cover legal expenses."
When one is innocent it is hard to prove guilt... Hopefully, Durham will expose the biggest accusations Trump has had to put up with. Hillery's crazy Russian Hoax.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- … -dismissedIt is too bad Trump is such a liar, those are nice words, but I bet he felt ill when he said or wrote "truth and justice". When will you understand that all he does is lie to you.
Nobody knows why Zarvos dropped her suit, maybe Trump threatened her life, I wouldn't put it past him.
The Cohen case was dismissed on a technicality. Trump is well known for not paying people. That is why he can't find good lawyers to represent him.
This is what Trump and his White Nationalist Army is all about - and it is very scary the level of organization they have.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/us/unite … index.htmlSeems like they found another case of virtually non-existent voter fraud in the 2020 election. As expected, it was a Republican who did it.
Too bad all these voter suppression laws by Republicans aren't going after the REAL bad guys - other Republicans.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/21/politics … index.htmlI furthering Trump's attempted coup, Minority Leader McCarthy stands up in the House to deliver a pack of lies about the infrastructure bill. (It is the fact that he is lying which is furthering Trump's on-goingeffort to destabilize or destroy democracy)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/20/politics … index.htmlTrump did not attempt a coup, no one attempted a coup and there is no on-going effort to destabilize the democracy. Not by anyone on the right, that I can tell.
I realize the left loves to change the definition of words to suit their fancy but a coup is a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. No one seized power. No one attempted to seize power.
A group of people participated in a protest. One that did not involve burning down businesses or looting them. The lies that have been perpetuated by the left concerning that demonstration are staggering.The lying is you trying to deny the actions Trump and his cronies used to undermine a legitimate election beginning in October when he started claiming some votes would be fraudulent. The illegal calls to elections officials trying to overturn the legal results. The calls to the DOJ trying to get them to fabricate the outcome. And then organizing his followers to be in the Capitol on January 6 when Congress was to certify the election.
Were you so upset when HIllary spent 4 years denying she lost? Probably not. Were you as upset when Stacy Abrams claimed she really won an election? Doubtful. They all whine when they lose. Did anyone overturn legal results? Not that I'm aware of. Did Barr do anything that remotely resembled an attempt to fabricate an outcome? Not that I am aware of.
So, you are grossly overstating. Par for the course.Hillary conceded the next day, and then election interference and Manafort collusion was proven as she noted. In what world is it appropriate to run the election you're a candidate in as Brian Kemp did?
And you remain in denial to anything illicit Trump does. The Georgia calls are clear election tampering.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … terference
https://www.chicagotribune.com/election … story.html
And apparently your far-right media does not report on the DOJ corruption that was after Barr had resigned for upholding democracy:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/3 … ion-501775
And this one really lays out the false reality Trump lives in when trying to undermine our elections:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article … eline.html"Were you so upset when Hillary delusional you are. As Valeant said, Hillary conceded the next day, something your boy has failed to do at all so far. Have you bought into Trump's Big Lie which he is using as a foundation for his coup attempt?
As to Stacy Abrams, you made up another fabrication. She conceded the election as well, although she did say she thought Kemp cheated.
Rather than deflect to something that is not true you might address what is "overstated" about 1) Trump's illegal calls, 2) Trump's attempt to get DOJ to fabricate the outcome (fortunately, there were still a couple of people there who had the spine to stand up to Trump's bullying), and 3) to legally call his army to DC on Jan 6, but illegally incite them to riot and send them on their way to the capitol to create mayhem.
You are grossly overstating. Par for the course.[/i]
"here is no on-going effort to destabilize the democracy" - Do I interpret that correctly to say you buy into Trump's Big Lie, which is the foundation of his on-going coup attempt. You must if you claim there is no on-going attempt.
Your critique of the word "coup" is called "sharpshooting" and is an attempt to deflect from the real issue. Everybody knows what is meant by the word "coup". It describes Trump's attempt to 1) stop gov't from functioning, in this case certifying Biden's win and 2) overturn the results of a free and fair election. "Coup" does fit for Jan 6 as does the word "insurrection". Try returning to the issue at hand.
"A group of people participated in a protest." - BOY, are all in with the "walk in the park" crowd, aren't you? Truly delusional!
Glad to see this happening - Trump lawyers paying the price for spreading the democracy-destabilizing Big Lie
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/22/politics … index.htmlIsn't it so SAD that 78,000,000+ American citizens (I have a hard time calling them just American) think what this Boebert woman said is cool and righteous? It is the same group that don't think too many people are dying from gun violence and from Covid. It is the same group who endangers their own kids, family, friends, and strangers by not getting vaccinated.
In what world do those characteristics live up to the American ideals?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … dn-vpx.cnnMore to cement the case against Trump's insurrection -
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics … index.htmlWait. This Rodriguez heard Trump call for help in enforcing voting laws, went far beyond what was asked - including participating in a violent riot - and is sorry he did so.
And that's what you think will help to "cement the case against Trump's insurrection"? You're grasping, Eso, as you always do when it comes to Trump. Had Rodriguez indicated Trump was speaking in the secret code he is accused of, and produced a copy of the translation he received from Trump, you might have a case. But to do what was specifically denied by Trump, and then indicate sorrow that he did so, bolsters Trump's case, not yours.You betcha. A few federal judges think so as well saying those who spoke on Jan 6 need to be held accountable.
It makes little difference that Trump denied something - he is a serial liar after all and not to be believed in anything he says.
It sounds like you would want all of the inciting a riot convictions overturned because the judges and juries didn't know what they were doing, lol.Again, wait. A "few judges" are going public with an opinion on what could very well be the trial of the century without have heard a single argument? What kind of faux "judge" are you listening to, anyway?
Whether judges have their equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath or not, they DO have an ethical responsibility to promote fair trials, and giving their weighted opinion (supposedly from their experience) is NOT ethical. It is intended to influence a jury, nothing more.
Trumps denial concerned his statements made that day about marching peacefully rather than calling for a riot. He "denied" the riot by asking for something else instead and by NOT asking for violence. Of course, that's where the "secret code" that you claim he used (without a shred of evidence) comes into play."A "few judges" are going public with an opinion on what could very well be the trial of the century without have heard a single argument?" - So now you think judges, along with all other non-Trumpers, can't read or hear and be able to form opinions based on what is known. You don't need a trial to know that 1 + 1 = 2 or 10?
"What kind of faux "judge" are you listening to, anyway?" - I forgot, you don't read or listen to real news. But to help you out, it is the patriotic, real American judges trying the insurrectionists.
" they DO have an ethical responsibility to promote fair trials, " - Oh come on. Virtually every judge out there issues opinions about the world around them. And how is saying those that instigated the insurrection need to be held accountable an unreasonable thing to say? Now, if they had said Trump is Guilty, then you might have a point.
" He "denied" the riot by asking for something else instead and by NOT asking for violence. " - Oh, give me another break! How can you focus on one sentence (one to give him cover if he needed it) out of 70+ minutes of otherwise inflammatory speech designed to and was successful at riling up the crowd to fever pitch, falsely believing America was under attack? Oh, I know how, you will defend Trump beyond all reason for some unknown, fanciful reason. I liken Trump's speech to the one famously given by Patton before sending his troops off to fight and die."Oh, give me another break! How can you focus on one sentence (one to give him cover if he needed it) out of 70+ minutes of otherwise inflammatory speech..."
Please - point to one sentence, just one, where Trump asked the crowd to hang a legislator. Or even physically break into the Capital. Or taze a single cop. Or even to break a single window at the Capital. anything where Trump specifically asked for any form of violence (not your "interpretation" of his "secret code", but an actual request for violence.
Can't do it? Then you should quit repeating that he DID ask for violence, simply as a matter of honesty and integrity.And there we go again with Wilderness changing what was said and then claiming you said something that only he heard.
What Eso said: 'How can you focus on one sentence (one to give him cover if he needed it) out of 70+ minutes of otherwise inflammatory speech designed to and was successful at riling up the crowd to fever pitch, falsely believing America was under attack?'
What Wilderness claims Eso said: '...you should quit repeating that he DID ask for violence.'
Eso did not claim Trump asked for violence. The claim is that Trump's speech incited people to violence - which many, including those two federal judges and in the days following the attack, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy both also confirmed as views - can plainly see.You are just being obtuse again. You know as well as I do that the law doesn't require such specific threats like that - that is why it is called "inciting". It is clear to most people that the words he did use would have the likely outcome that actually happened. That is all that is needed to be proved.
Let alone he was pushing the baseless narrative that Congress was certifying a decision that was 'stolen' from them.
No - it is clear to you, seen through your own bias and hatred of the man that he said those things. Most people heard what he said rather than what you think he meant.
And yet so many of those arrested heard what Trump and the 12 other speakers were saying and claim they thought he meant to fight by storming the Capitol and 'stopping the steal' that was taking place inside.
Doesn't the testimony of those who were incited and committed the actual violence mean more than what any of us think? In multiple claims in the courts, defense attorneys have noted their clients were convinced by Trump and his dozen minions' words to attack the Capitol.
Quite literally, the definition of being incited.
And judges are agreeing with that argument.Like the one in the link that testified he heard Trump ask people to come to DC and was very sorry he participated in the riot. Again, no indication he ever heard, or thought, that Trump asked for violence.
I don't doubt for a single instance that defense attorneys are trying to shift the blame to someone else. Are you?
"And judges are agreeing with that argument."
And then what? The judges set the rioters free because they were incited to riot? What kind of judge fails to hold a rioter responsible for their own actions?
(Perhaps I shouldn't ask that - the ninth court is pretty famous for extremely liberal decisions and certainly liberal cities don't hold rioters responsible. Why would a judge?)Exactly what judges are NOT holding the insurrectionists responsible?
And of course your claim that cities didn't hold rioters responsible is a complete fabrication that you are so famous for. (and yes, I realize your "what aboutism" is simply a deflection from the real problem - an attack on our system of government.You got it right! The rioters are responsible...while you claim judges are holding Trump responsible.
You're also right - I will always attack a "government", even a city one, that allows and encourages the burning of cities. Unfortunately, many of us do not.Talk about fantasy worlds, I just visited the main page and came across this article:
https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/ … surrection
It's so filled with lies I had to write to Hubpages and ask if there were limits to the delusional articles they are willing to allow. The writer still claims that there was massive election fraud and that Ashli Babbitt was murdered.Could you supply a quote where the author "claims that there was massive election fraud and that Ashli Babbitt was murdered."
I skimmed through the article and could not locate these accusations. In fact, the article seemed to be well researched. I would have liked to see a few listed sources. One must also note it is an opinion-oriented article.
He has a right to write his opinion does he not?
I would be interested in the two quotes in regard to -- "claims that there was massive election fraud and that Ashli Babbitt was murdered."They are in there if you look closer than a skim.
And once your writings begin to foment violent acts, such as the election lie has already done or claiming an exonerated police officer is a murderer, then many social media sites have found those themes to not be appropriate to be published on their platforms.
Perhaps Hubpages differs than sites such as Twitter or Facebook who have suspended many for such vileness. And if so, perhaps it's time to shine a spotlight on this site as a promoter of hate.I will read it in full.
Read it... Oh my, this writer uses a selection of facts mixed with his opinion. His word choice, quality, and tone of description, certainly convey a particular f attitude. All of these variables convey a certain attitude or more over his point of view toward the given subject.
In my view, this writer exudes self-opinionatedness. He is steadfast to an opinion, and the course of his piece is to give his very steadfast view and use persuasion to give his reader something to think about. He certainly goes into building his article from the first paragraph on into a "gotcha ". I mean he would bait a conservative as well as a liberal with his opening and kept me reading to the end --- where yes, he offers his steadfast unbendable opinion. Is it bias? It depends on the person that is reading its perception. He did lay out his case and backed up how he came to his position.
Did I agree with all of what he shared? No, just bits and pieces. And yes he took liberties with words, that I would not. He used the word murder in regard to Ashli Babbitt's death. However, later in the article, he gave a synopsis of what occurred when she was killed. Was it murder? I certainly don't know what was in the officers' mind went he shot Babbett. He was a black man, and I think the author did make a solid point if Ashli was black, and the officer white, we would have been having an entirely different conversation. The shouting was investigated and dropped. It left many open to having questions about her death. This writer, clearly felt she was murdered... Does he have a right to his opinion? As many feel she was not, do they have a right to their opinion?
In my opinion, the officer panic out of fear and took a shot. Nothing more.When you watch the video you see the officer protecting elected officials from a violent woman forcing her way into their chambers. The police in general used a lot of restraint, maybe because the rioters were white. I remember thinking as I watched the assault on our government that if the insurrectionists were black, there would be a pile of bodies laying on the Capitol grounds.
He made his murder claim twice in that steaming pile of horsepoo. Despite the officer already being cleared as Ashli Babbitt was deemed a credible threat.
As I said, an investigation was done, no charges came out of it. It seems he does believe she was murdered. I don't find it a problem, he did add a long scenario of what happened that led up to the shooting. To cover is opinion. I don't feel these kinds of accusations are ever warranted.
I don't feel she was murdered. I think it was a bad situation, and after doing lots of reading on what happened, I feel the officer did feel threatened, and he had no way of knowing other officers were on the other side of that large door with Babbitt.
We both know there are many that do believe Babbitt was killed unnecessarily. I will admit if I felt threatened in a riot situation, I would shoot maybe out of fear or sheer panic. Fear and panic are such strong emotions. Both trigger fight or flight reactions.
I did read the article. The closest I could find to " <the author> claims that there was massive election fraud..." was "Afterward, thousands strolled down to the Capitol to protest election fraud."
Saying that thousands protested election fraud is NOT the same (not even close) to the author claiming massive election fraud. Unless you, too, claim massive election fraud? Because I'm pretty sure you've claimed the rioters were there to protest voter fraud, just as the author did.
Perhaps you should read it again."strolled", Watkins is clearly showing he is living in a fantasy world.
Sure. As was pointed out, it IS an opinion piece, and the intent was to show that the wild, outrageous claims by Democrats only happen when they can blame Republicans. Which he did very well - I haven't heard any of those other things reported in comparison to the Capital riot.
Have you? Or you just hear, as I did, that it was the worst thing in history - an outright, baseless lie given what has gone down in the past.Opinions still need to be based on truth to be credible.
Clearly Watkins is not credible and needs to be ignored. My opinion is that the moon is made of green cheese. That is not credible and nobody should put any faith in my opinions if I stick to it once proven wrong.
Watkins description of the insurrection, his opinion, defies the evidence and logic. Because of that, his whole analysis goes out the window.
You may have "heard" those things. I saw those things. Also, for you to be credible, you should have followed up "worst thing in history" with "since ...". Otherwise, we mark you down as being hyperbolic again and making something up so that you can argue it.
Perhaps you should learn to read better. Much, much better.
'It was right to be furious about the Hunter Biden laptop story being censored until after the 2020 election, along with the truth about the Biden family's corruption via payoffs and bribes by China. Add to that the lying about the origin of the virus and the taking away of all our liberties during masking and lockdowns, crushing small businesses and churches. Then the massive election fraud topped it off.'
And we're back to haggling over words you cannot process. This, again, is where I stop trying to debate you when you try and twist a clear statement into something completely different than what was actually written.
Opinion is one thing, but lies, misinformation, and disinformation is something else again.
How else should I interpret your statement "Exactly what judges are NOT holding the insurrectionists responsible?"?
Did you mean the judges are not holding the rioters responsible for their own actions? Because I seem to recall several indictments and some convictions as well..."Did you mean the judges are not holding the rioters responsible for their own actions" - What are you talking about? That makes no sense
" I will always attack a "government", even a city one, that allows and encourages the burning of cities." ME TOO...
The problem is, his statement is a lie and you bought into it.
You are SO right, they heard what he said, got angry like he wanted, and went to storm the Capitol.
1. They are assembled by him
2. They were enraged by him (you can clearly hear that in the videos)
3. They were sent to the Capitol by him to "Stop the Steal"
And a 1000+ of them attacked the Capitol as a foreseeable result and caused an insurrection.
How does the song go? Simple as 1, 2, 3.No, you can hear him enraging them. No one else does - just asking they peacefully march and speak to legislators.
No, you foresaw the future...and warned no one. Not even the capital police or FBI foresaw what would come to happen. Of course hindsight is 20-20, especially when you can change Trump's words to match the event.And everyone else who heard it - the anger in the voices and the words they used was unmistakable. Every time Trump exhorted them to Stop the Steal, they got angrier and angrier. Only you can mistake beating up cops as walking in the park.
As to the Capitol Police and FBI not knowing - again you are wrong. For example - "A January 3 memo from the Capitol Police intelligence division, parts of which were obtained by the Post, highlights the threat of violence by supporters of President Donald Trump in striking detail — and only adds to confusion about how the attack occurred anyway."
Just because their internal communication skills were lacking doesn't mean people in authority didn't have sufficient information to be worried - they did. Besides, who would have thunk that the President of United States would incite an insurrection?"Only you can mistake beating up cops as walking in the park." And only you can mistake a request to march peacefully for a request to riot and murder. Fair enough.
Why do you keep making things up? I know, because you don't have facts and truth to back up your wild claims.
Justice Department prosecutors say they have evidence that an alleged rioter who brought a gun to the US Capitol on January 6 was targeting both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. - Yep, just a normal visitors' day and walk in the park!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/politics … index.htmlIn normal times when it is an employers labor market (which is most of the time) separations are driven by layoffs. In times like these, they are driven by "quits". Right now, the "quits" are more than three times higher than "fires". This means people, regardless of what they say in the polls, feel the economy is strong enough to risk quitting and finding another job.
The jobs report "jobs added" number is the difference between the number of hires (many of which are people who quit) and the number of "fires". I am guessing those who are forecasting are getting the number of "quits" wrong. After all, why would somebody give up a job when, as conservatives want you to believe, the economy sucks? Maybe because people really think the economy is good.
As a side note, the 4.2% suggests strongly that everyone who wants a job in America, has a job.
Finally, the participation rate finally ticked up, again suggesting an improving economy.
Thank you President Biden.Just guessing, but I really doubt that people are thinking "Hey - the economy is great so I'll look for a job I like better".
Instead I would imagine the process to be something like "There are job ads everywhere and nobody can find workers. I can quit, easily find something else at a higher wage". After all the news about high inflation that may well be a part of the thinking as well: "I better find something paying better or I'm going to be hungry with all this inflation". Fear rather than happiness with the good economy is likely driving many to look for something better. Or just greed, take your pick.Your guess would be wrong then. 1) That is what is being reported by economists surveys, 2) what else explains the number of "quits" being 3 times higher than layoffs, and 3) and why aren't quits so much higher in a poor economy?
I find it ironic that conservatives main deride people in low wage jobs not simply quitting and finding a higher paying job. Now you are calling them greedy.
" This means people, regardless of what they say in the polls, feel the economy is strong enough to risk quitting and finding another job."
How in the hell do you come up with such a matter-of-fact statement? I do know you believe what you say is the bottom line,
the last word... But this statement takes the cake.
There are "likely" many variables that "may" be a reason to quit one's job.
One reason could be they are at present getting free cash per child... One reason they decided to stay on unemployment until it ran out...
One reason, they hated their job to begin with.
I would bet not many would even feel our economy is "doing so well"... Not sure if you realize we are in a period of growing inflation."How in the hell do you come up with such a matter-of-fact statement? " - Because I read what is reported, analyzed, and not opinion by reliable news outlets.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021 … their-jobs
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ … signation/Not sure if you realize we are in a period of growing inflation....
...When looking at year-over-year comparisons and trying to normalize the ridiculously low inflation that we had during the height of the pandemic by then comparing it to the once-in-a-lifetime recovery.
Some of us aren't panicking over this as we understand that these are not normal years to be comparing to historical trends."One reason could be they are at present getting free cash per child... One reason they decided to stay on unemployment until it ran out..." - That is just a conservative trope and, while there are a few exceptions, has been proven NOT to be true. But, I suspect you keep on pushing this piece of misinformation even though you have nothing to back it up
"One reason, they hated their job to begin with." - Yes, that is one of the reasons people quit. Is it not reasonable to think that the economy must be relatively strong before a person who hates their job has the confidence they can find another job before they quit?
Not sure you realized inflation is relatively not that bad, right now. Even as I right, oil prices are sinking (down 22%) which should put the brakes on inflation growing any more.
Another topic: There has been some analysis out that suggests that if SCOTUS takes away a woman's control over her own body, which seems likely right now, that the blowback from Americans, especially women, will kill any chance the Republicans to take back the House and Senate. Do you agree?I am for keeping Roe as is. Unfortunately at this point, our society has the need for abortion. My thoughts are vast on this subject.
I don't think the media has this right, I think Roe will be used as precedent and left alone.
If it is tossed out, I am not sure how it would play in 2022 with women.
I think women's views are complicated on the subject of abortion, maybe another 50 -50 split. Plus, women seem to be concerned with many things right now. So, it will depend on what the current party does in many areas - economy, education, crime, and immigration. Women these days are very diverse in what concerns them the most.All true, except the 50-50 (unless men are more pro-choice than women are, lol) Roughly 19% of Americans say a woman should not have the right to choose. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
My personal view on it is that as a personal choice for my wife and I, I oppose abortion and favor adoption instead. That said, I may get overruled. BUT, I also believe that I do not have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body until the time of viability.
My gut tells me Republicans are in deep doo-doo it Roe is reversed.
BTW - This is where I got my 22% decline in oil prices - https://www.rigzone.com/news/commodity/Good website, I saved it.
The “political attack” on fossil fuels as of recent, could have added or removed the incentive for investment in the oil sector. Even despite its lingering importance of oil. I read that that 84% of the world’s energy demand last year was met by fossil fuels.
So, the issue for me is not the oil price at this moment, the issue is the pandemic, and will the price of oil go higher in a truely fully reopened world? Few are investing in oil right now. However, the world is still consuming fossil fuels. So oil could certainly go much higher, and that can definitely escalate inflation. Some analysts are predicting oil rising to $150.00 a barrel in 2022.
I think the only thing that’s could knock the oil price down would be lockdowns in America. I truely feel the new variant scare is why oil corrected itself a bit last week. The price fell on the very news of this new scare.
Lot's of variables to consider, it will be interesting to see if analysts are correct in regard to the price per barrel rising to $150.00.I think it will be a very long time before the world is "fully opened". So long as there are anti-vaxers, and covid deniers (yep there are many of those still hanging around), and the pandemic remains politicized, then Covid will never become noise in the background. If America and the world do a much, much better job of getting people vaccinated, variants will keep popping up each year. Sooner or later, one will come around that will defeat what we have done so far and put us back to square one.
I am now pessimistic that America will ever reach heard immunity because of the political resistance to getting vaccinated. If we do, it will be a very long time from now If that becomes true, then today, with all of its pandemic related problems, will be the new normal.Hopefully in the next few weeks, we will see at least 80% of American's vaccinated, add in the citizens that did catch COVID and lived -- about 49,959,112 so far. We will have a pretty good herd. Hopefully, it will be big enough to decrease the infection of mutations. That's where a problem could occur. I am very anxious to hear more about the latest strain. Hopefully, this virus will denture in a way that eradicates its virulence. I can't see it going away altogether, most viruses don't. We still have strains from H1N1 from 2009. it has well denatured itself to a lesser type of flu. I hope the world will come together to vaccinate counties that just don't have the resources to run a vaccination plan.
"The White House announced on Monday that 70 percent of adults in the U.S. are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and that 80 percent of adults have received at least their first shot." https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 … -partiallyWe are not quite at 60% right now. Is vaccinations surging that much? For the Delta variant, I have heard we will need upwards of 95%
I think The Hill story has it wrong. It was from Nov 1 and this was from four days ago.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … is-winter/
The 60% number is buried in the middle of the announcement. I think whoever The Hill was quoting mistook 60% for 80%I took this source as competent due to the person offering it.
"The White House announced on Monday that 70 percent of adults in the U.S. are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and that 80 percent of adults have received at least their first shot.
Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, disclosed the statistics during a press briefing Monday morning, saying that the U.S. has “hit two important milestones.”
Cyrus Shahpar, the White House COVID-19 data director, said in a tweet that more than 935,000 doses were administered in the past day, including 240,000 initial shots and 571,000 additional doses and boosters."
I would think the CDC would be the best place to obtain the stats on how many are vaccinated in the US. It seems most information offers, as you said 60%. I just thought this Cyrus Shahpar, the White House COVID-19 data director, should have the real number. That is his job.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 … -partiallyDeleted
So, it would appear we have the CDC offering different stats than the White House. So, who are we to believe? Would you have a link to where you found your status?
"The White House announced on Monday that 70 percent of adults in the U.S. are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and that 80 percent of adults have received at least their first shot.
Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, disclosed the statistics during a press briefing Monday morning, saying that the U.S. has “hit two important milestones.”
Or is the CDC not capable of compiling data?
I really dislike this kind of deception. In the link, one can see the video, and tweets in regards to the stats. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 … -partially
Here is another source from the White House that covered that remark... Transcript from Press Briefing by White House COVID-19 Response Team and Public Health Officials Date Nov 1, 2021
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … icials-65/
"We’re making important progress on both fronts. In fact, today, we hit two important milestones: 80 percent of adults now have at least their first shot, and 70 percent of adults are now fully vaccinated; 8 out of 10 adults with at least one shot, 7 out of 10 adults fully vaccinated."Deleted
Well the CDC offers a very described well laid out picture of all one would need to know about who got what.
Should have figured the White House pushed numbers that suited an agenda.
Thank you for the link, I will save it due to it updates daily."Should have figured the White House pushed numbers that suited an agenda." - Or made a mistake a month ago. Talking about making a mountain out of a ant hill.
Well it is two for 60%, the CDC and the most current WH number or Nov 1 report from The Hill - the Monday they are referring to.
.
It is also clear that somebody got it wrong since you can't have more people with two shots than those with at least one shot. Further, this is old news and has since been corrected, or does that not count in these partisan times?
Yeah, I trust The Hill, but everybody mistakes, including, apparently, Mr. Shahpar.
As Trump attempts to overthrow Biden, Biden faces a trio of anti-democratic challenges, all just as dangerous as the other: Russia, China, and Trump.as this analysis investigated.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/07/politics … index.htmlCNN ? Not sure if you have kept up with the faulty reputation they have earned. Warner Media will be taking over the first of the year and has indicated they will provide a more solid news platform. No more bias BS hopefully.
"John Malone says WarnerMedia-Discovery getting rid of CNN would be the ‘coward’s way out’" "There’s a place for CNN in the proposed $43 billion combination of WarnerMedia and Discovery, billionaire media mogul John Malone told CNBC
“A coward’s way out would be to sell [CNN] or spin it off and then sell it,” said the cable TV pioneer and longtime chairman of Liberty Media."
“I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing,” said the cable TV pioneer and longtime chairman of Liberty Media, which is a major shareholder in Discovery. “I do believe good journalism could have a role in this future portfolio that Discovery-TimeWarner’s going to represent.”
Source -- https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/18/john-ma … out.html#:
So, they will have a second chance, hope they don't blow it... It will naturally be a big shock to devotees systems, but the change in platform is well needed.
At any rate, Biden should stop the blame game. His troubles come to form his own weak way of Governing, and the disrespect he has earned due to his lack of problem-solving. Blaming others just confirms his weak character in my view. Russia and China just see they can take advantage of such a weak president. I would think Iran also realizes this as a plus.
You have seen polls on Bidens foreign policies --- Feb 2021
"President Joe Biden begins his term with a majority of Americans having confidence in his ability to handle international affairs. In a new Pew Research Center survey, 60% of U.S. adults have confidence in Biden on foreign policy" source https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … rm-begins/
Today his polls show he is at 38% approve 59% disapprove of his job in regard to foreign policy. source -- https://news.gallup.com/poll/357545/bid … water.aspx
Another poll I follow has steadily shown Global Leaders
approval of Biden. falling weekly. he is now underwater.
source --- https://morningconsult.com/global-leader-approval/
Biden needs to stop playing the blame game and start down a path of solving problems, not just talking about solving problems... Words are cheap."CNN ? Not sure if you have kept up with the faulty reputation they have earned." - You do know you are actually referring to Fake Fox News. CNN's reputation is doing just fine. For example, they got rid of Chris Cuomo of basically lying to them - noble thing to do. Yet what does Fox do with much, much worse liars like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingram, Maria Bariromo, Jeanine Pirro, to name just a few. Everyone should have been fired long ago.
The latest (8/21) "trust" poll, has MSNBC at 90%, followed by Fox at 89%, and then BBC, ABC at 88%, and CNN at 87%.
The previous poll (2/21). however, changed things up a bit. The most trusted news source was MSNBC at 93%, CNN at 92%, BBC at 90%, ABC at 88%, PBS at 87%, and Fox at 86%
Then a year ago it was CNN, BBC, Fox, MSNBC, ABC at 90%.
So, do you want to reconsider your trashing of CNN's reputation.
You probably need to read up of the AT&T spin off of WarnerMedia which will merge with Discovery. CNN is going nowhere and doesn't need to become "a more solid news platform" - it already is a very solid platform. It is the conservative channels that are very shaky and need a LOT of help.
If Malone says that about CNN, I can't imagine what he would do to Fox. That said, here is what the new owner of CNN says: The prospect of CNN ownership "is something we take so much pride in," Zaslav told Harlow. "So we'll invest in it and try to continue to do what you guys are doing, which is tell great stories and be a great news brand."
And just WHO is Bide, our very strong president, blaming? Trump did it ALL the time, but I haven't really heard Biden blame anybody. He may be pointing out the truth, but telling the truth is not blaming, is it.
"not just talking about solving problems... " - As I just proven, that is delusional talk
What I have noticed is the more outrageous the LIE, the more Trumpers love it. It is amazing how for so many American citizens have sunk. Perdue has already gotten into the Trump muck, lying about Kemp.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics … index.htmlAnyone who even mutters that lie is an automatic disqualification for elected office in my mind.
Question to people like GA, who seems to be able to see through some of that bullcrap, is whether he would support someone who chooses that alternate reality still because their other policy agendas align or whether they would abstain or even vote across the aisle to preserve democracy.Good Question!
For example, will Georgia non-Trump Republicans vote for Perdue (who also supports the Big Lie) after a series of lies like this one he recently uttered on Fake Fox News' Russian mouthpiece Sean Hannity's show?
"Over my dead body will we ever do what Kemp did, and that is turn our elections over to Stacey Abrams,"
Trump? Last I knew Biden is president. A bit of current news that affects us all, the poor taking the real brunt of Boden's poor Governing
US economy
US inflation rate rose 6.8% in 2021, the highest increase since 1982 -- For six months in a row price increases were seen across many sectors, including gas, food, and housing.
"The US inflation rate rose 6.8% over the last year, the highest increase since 1982, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday morning.
Inflation rose 0.8% in November after rising 0.9% in October. Price increases were seen across many sectors, including gas, food, and housing. This is the sixth month in a row the US is seeing price increases.
Ahead of Friday’s data release, Joe Biden released a statement saying that the inflation numbers “does not reflect today’s reality”. REALLY JOE? He is not living in reality, and citizens are not any longer willing to buy into his Emperor with no clothes non-sensible statements. The writing is on the wall, and they see cash leaking out of their budgets at an astronomic rate.
“It does not reflect the expected price decreases in the weeks and months ahead, such as in the auto market,” Biden said in the statement. RELLY BIDEN?
Again words that hold no common sense. He really seems to think his words will fix all, while all falls apart due to we have no one in that White House Governing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59573145
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 … since-1982
IMO -- Time for Biden to toss in the towel, he is quickly ruining the country on all levels. Congress needs to act, and act now. He is stumbling around in a daze, reading promoters, and even adding the footnote at the end of the speech "End of message"... He has no business in the office of the presidency. We put the country in danger with this man in office.Knew this was coming. Comparing year-over-year inflation to a once in a lifetime pandemic year and seeing that as an issue is stupid.
Once Biden fixes the supply chains that broke under Trump's disaster pandemic response, inflation will normalize. Until then, we get to listen to your monthly misguided blame game.You had to know this was coming -- LOL
Yes, we had a once in a lifetime pandemic, IMO the minute Biden walked into that office, and decided COVID was his only Trump card, we were in trouble. He lacked the common sense to get the country back to work, not pay them to stay home... We were dealt a bad hand, but we needed to buck up and do our very best at living with a pandemic. He played the wrong card, and now he is playing the blame game.
The supply chain has made only slight progress and will take a very long time to be back to what could be considered normal. Trump supplied the country with vaccines, all Biden needed to do was pull the country together to take the vaccine. His message was too confusing, people don't trust him or his COVID team. Hey, I always have said the biggest mistake Trump ever made was Fauchi... I smart president would have replaced him the minute the public lost trust in him. His Trump card COVID no longer is worthy of playing. he needs to solve problems! I pray he realizes he is president --- he needs to solve problems, not create them. he needs to stop listening to whoever is whispering in his ear, with all their BS --- and Govern.
I do blame Biden totally, and I will continue to offer polls, not my voice but the voice of the majority. I realize he is your guy, but I don't care for the way your guy is running America into the ground. I hope your guy makes a turn about and starts doing better... He has time to do just that. At this point, he scares me big time.Trump does get credit for the vaccines. He also gets dinged for undermining the scientists charged with giving the information and hiding from his supporters the fact that he got vaccinated in secret.
Then he ran a campaign to undermine Biden's legitimacy by saying that the election was stolen. And yet, you blame Biden for people not trusting him? You must be blind to causation.
And that blindness extends to all the things Biden has accomplished. He has been solving problems and passing legislation. Just because you are ignorant to it and listen mostly to the right-wing echo chamber you live in, does not make it true.
We all know you will offer polls, just try and see all the polling. You do tend to latch onto the most negative while ignoring the more moderate ones that favor Biden.
The fear you feel is the programming they feed you. Instead, study the history of how democratic policies have made the country better. Clinton - balanced budget, great economy. Obama - stabilized the economy after Bush, then economic and record job growth."Then he ran..." - "Is Running, lol
That is true - it is demonstrable that America, under liberal rule fared much better than under conservative rule. (I have to put it in those terms because of the Great Flip back in the 40s and 50s.)
"He lacked the common sense to get the country back to work," - Sorry, that, of course, is truly FALSE. Unemployment down to 4.8% and almost 6 million jobs added to the economy. You want to try the TRUTH this time?
"not pay them to stay home..." - Again, FALSE. Just more conservative liesOnce again IMO this is due to unemployment ran out, people returning to work... No more no less, does make a nice stat but just shows people realizing it's time to get back to work. what I said was --- He lacked the common sense to get the country back to work, not pay them to stay home...
IMO he paid them to stay home. Again my opinion. You frequently call or refer to me as a liar, this is uncalled for and shows a lack
of social skills. Most of your posts are very much your opinion, we don't in any respect agree on most subjects or the way you handle a
conversation.Deleted
I think you're absolutely correct that it wasn't just the federal unemployment, or extended state unemployment, that is keeping people home. Fear of COVID is likely a big reason, the ready access to a new, perhaps better, job is in there, as is the hope that a better salary might come along if they just wait a little longer.
But I think the massive giveaways also play a big part. The stimulus checks, the money to parents of children, the assurance that rent does not need to be paid - all of these things are a part of it, too, and a big part.Where do "the studies" put the giveaways as reasons people didn't go back to work when jobs opened? 50% of the reason? 70%?
Do the studies show that without any form of financial help people would have still stayed home and starved, lost their homes, cars, etc. or would they have gone to work? Unless this is true (people would rather starve than work) then I'd have to say that the giveaways were a "big" part of staying home. As in 80%+.Minor. It gave the other reasons you mentioned as having more weight. And to get as absurd as your reasoning, maybe people chose to stay home to starve to death rather than going to work to die of Covid.
Or they chose to stay home to starve to death as opposed to going to work leaving their kids to fend for themselves. Come on, get real, get serious.No, you get real.
Certainly child care was, and is, a reason to stay home. I did mention fear of COVID as well, along with a couple of others.
But when you pooh pooh the fact that people don't need to work to get along as a reason not to work, you aren't living in reality. Precious few people will work if they don't need to - if the "free" money they get will provide them a comfortable lifestyle. When people are taking home more money by staying home (and a great many did - don't forget that it wasn't the high end white collar that lost their job, it was the bottom end blue collar worker) it is inconceivable that you think they would voluntarily go back to work.
You didn't link to any of those studies, so there is no way to know if they were only considering federal unemployment or whether they looked at all the assistance, from unemployment to free rent to aid to families with children to the plethora of welfare programs available to those that lost their jobs.When did I poo-poo anything, you are making that up. I simply stated that the studies show that it was a minor factor in why people stayed home, and it was. That was proven when those Republican governors cut off unemployment early and hardly anyone went back to work. There was no statistically significant increase in jobs after those governors decided it was best to put more misery into their citizens lives.
I have linked to those studies several times before, but you ignored them, so why bother doing it again?We provide links to studies. Many stop talking about the issues we disproved for a week or two. Then they return back to their original claims like we forgot that we already debunked them. This happens a lot in here.
And do I not admit when you have put forth your facts when I find I am flat wrong? I too but forth information that is undisputable.
Wes, I have read similar studies. All those governors who did that was hurt people unnecessarily.
Deleted
Good point on the retirees. I hadn't thought of that, but I'd bet there an awful lot of people that retired in reality if not on paper (that way they can continue to draw unemployment), and have no intention of ever going back.
Same thing happened, I think, in the recession a few years back. Lots of people drawing unemployment for extended periods of time, but without any intention of every working again.How did I get fixated on the words "wes" and "was" and misusing them, lol.
"Retired" - hadn't thought of that.Deleted
Yes, Trump's assault on immigration could easily be a factor. It will also be a factor in keeping our mid to long-term economic growth at a low level because population growth rate + productivity growth rate approximates GDP growth rate over the medium to long-term.
Non-immigrant Americans haven't replaced themselves for awhile now meaning that without immigration, America's population would actually be declining, and with it GDP (Wilderness has argued that means nothing and is probably a good thing, because declining population means increasing GDP per capita. The problem is, that logic doesn't work.)
Bottom line is America needs all the immigrants we can get (which studies show that by-and-large, they are more productive, more motivated, and less criminal than native-born Americans are while at the same time adding more to the economy than they use.
I noted that Arkansaw 4.4% in June and record show by end of Oct 3.7% it appears unemployment dropped steadily in Arkansaw from June to Oct. Actually, the majority of the 25 states that cut the unemployment benefits early did much better than those that did not cut benefits.
Here in Michigan, we did not discontinue extended unemployment on Sept 4, in June we were at 5.1% we are now above 6% unemployment and growing. We are hoping now that the unemployment has been cut we will see people return to work.
In my view states that had a high count of infections from COVID were more fearful to return to normal. Michigan had a Governor that had the strictest of mitigations and made much of the population fearful. We unfortunately had and have some of the highest infection rates when compared to other states. At this point, our hospitals need the Federal government's help to obtain more vents as well as the medical staff."Actually, the majority of the 25 states that cut the unemployment benefits early did much better than those that did not cut benefits." - [b]Actually, the studies I have posted before that were ignored came to the opposite conclusion - there was no statistical difference between the two. Here, I'll post it again and hope you read it this time[/i]
This is from July - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/22/cuts-to … finds.html
This is from Aug that says largely the same thing - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/23/ending- … -says.html
This is later still, from Sept, same story - https://slate.com/business/2021/09/unem … iring.html
I say again, cutting off benefits had little impact, certainly not what the Right touted, but there is no doubt it made life much harder for the citizens of their states.You might try blaming the REAL culprits - Republicans. The Republican legislature who sued Whitmer to stop her from protecting Michiganders; the Republican Justices who ruled against Whitmer, and the Republican electorate who refuse to get vaccinated?
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ … 970811002/
At this point in time, roughly 1,200 a day, 36,000 a month, 144,000 a quarter, or 576,000 mostly Republicans or right-leaning independents are dying from Covid. Hey, but who is counting? Certainly not conservatives.
What is Michigan's share of that? 10%! Will 57,000 dead Michigan voters impact the 2022 election? Maybe, that is the margin of victory in many of your elections.
"Trump? Last I knew Biden is president. " - What has that got to do with anything. Besides, Trump needs to be talked about because he is a clear and present danger to our democracy! It is a shame you can't see that.
Inflations, many economists are saying it has reached its peak, I believe it.
"“does not reflect today’s reality”. REALLY JOE? " - Yes, really. The latest numbers do not reflect the decreases in energy prices. - So, who is not living in reality?
It is Trump who had no business being in the presidency, he is nutso and everything you accuse Biden of, but you can't see it. Instead, you can't see it. Nor can you see that Biden is really helping America out of the Dark Ages Trump put us in.
Biden can't be ruining a country that Trump already destroyed.'Biden can't be ruining a country that Trump already destroyed.'
Good luck getting Sharlee to acknowledge that statement."What has that got to do with anything. Besides, Trump needs to be talked about because he is a clear and present danger to our democracy! It is a shame you can't see that."
This would be your opinion. I don't agree, I find ruminating on Trump is very much odd.
Inflation all I can do is offer my opinion, it is getting worse, (I offered stats in the last comment) and will be around for a couple more years.
"The US inflation rate rose 6.8% over the last year, the highest increase since 1982, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday morning.
. "The latest numbers do not reflect the decreases in energy prices. - So, who is not living in reality?"
Sorry, these are the very numbers that came out yesterday... UNless you don't want to believe the stats?
Inflation rose 0.8% in November after rising 0.9% in October. Price increases were seen across many sectors, including gas, food, and housing. This is the sixth month in a row the US is seeing price increases.
Great News. Appeals Court hand Trump another expected defeat saying Trump is not the president and has no recourse to executive privilege if the REAL president doesn't assert it.
Only two steps left to getting one step closer to bringing the justice America deserves. With luck and God willing, the full appeals court will turn the appeal of this latest loss down and the Supreme Court does likewise given there is absolutely no rational Trump can use to hide the facts.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/politics … index.htmlTrump, the hero and pope-like figure to some of you, is totally nutso. Here is is latest.
Trump accuses Netanyahu of disloyalty for congratulating Biden after 2020 win: 'F**k him',
This is what 75 million Americans love about this egomaniac:
[i["There was no one who did more for Netanyahu than me. There was no one who did for Israel more than I did. And the first person to run to greet Joe Biden was Netanyahu. And not only did he congratulate him -- he did it in a video. [/i] - the video was the kicker.
And Trump keeps trying to overturn the 2020 election with his B[g Lie that the same 75 million Americans have been brainwashed into believing. SAD
Yep, pure presidential material for 2024, lol.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/politics … index.htmlDeleted
Absotutely!!
I would, however, modify two phrases you used: "tried" to "still trying" and "decides to run" to "wins".Just one republican budding in here --- I voted both times for Trump. I in no respect supported what is called "Big Lie". I liked how he Governed, his job performance, I felt the country was safe under Trump, I liked the economy and the direction he was taking the promising Obama economy, I liked his immigration policies, I enjoyed feeling I had a president that was ready and willing to pull out of long time wars I never approved of, I liked his vision with making the US energy independent ( Because although the climate needs tending we are not any longer energy-independent but now just using the same amounts of energy, but buying it from other countries, where we have no say in how they harvest oil and get it to market crossed our oceans... ) In my view, this is a poor way to say we are offering a solution to preparing our climate. We have one atmosphere... We have oceans that no matter where oil leaks, it is still a leak... Shell games are for the unintelligent in my view.
In summation, I hope Trump does not run in 2024. I do hope whoever runs respects that Trump's policies are what half the country enjoyed, and incorporates them in their own agenda. At any rate, I will be voting Republican, out of pure fear, and the realization that in my view offer nothing that resembles the America I have come to love, and prefer.Half the country enjoyed? Trump's approval rate never reached half and was closer to about 40%.
Trump was the most unstable president we ever had, governing by whim or whatever served his own purposes. His immigration policy, specifically the child separation policy, was deemed a human rights violation and will end up costing the country billions due to the harm it caused those families. He is the Joe Arpaio of presidential immigration policy.
While the cutting of regulations and taxes did improve upon the economy in some respects, that came at a cost in national debt. Saddling future generations with trillions to make himself look good in the immediate is not something to brag about.
And those economic gains get to be viewed through the lens of a man who ignored the warnings about the Wuhan Lab that were given to him in 2018. Ignored warnings that did lead to a pandemic that erased many of his gains and left him with a net negative job creation over four year and $7.8 trillion wracked up onto the national debt - a four-year record.
A president who does not read briefings, thinks his own inexperienced opinion is better than all others due to his narcissism, and one who ignores science did not make the majority of America feel very safe at all."Trump was the most unstable president we ever had, governing by whim or whatever served his own purposes."
He made decisions quickly, and problems never became worse due to being indecisive. Not ever words or 90-day committees...
Biden is using the same cages Obama but and used... We have over 100 thousand unaccompanied children in America due to Biden's poor immigration stance. These children came with no parents to be separated from. He invited them to come. Trump left 500 children in America's care due to separation at the border. These children were children whose parents would not take them back when contacted, some had false information in regard to who their parents were. Odd you would bring up abandon children, these children sent in alone were sent by their parents.
I am not in any respect being drawn back into the timeline of what Trump knew when, and what he was told by Fauchi and others in CDC and WHO. That is where I put the blame, the Scientist he relied on for information... All there have timelines available, as well as all of Fauchi's and when he said what. I feel I took my facts from good sources. Timelines did not lie. Media did... I feel very confident my opinion was formed by facts, not talk jocks.
How in the world could you bring up the deficit? This is laughable... Do you know the cash Biden has in 10 months? Not sure how deep a hole you hope to dig for yourself, but in my view, you are in over your head.
Trump held more briefings than I have ever witnessed any president having.
"and one who ignores science did not make the majority of America feel very safe at all."
I must say this is one of the most ridiculous statements I have heard in a long time. A statement that clearly can't be backed up by any proof...
This man from the first case of COVID took it upon himself to form a team of scientists. The same team Biden has relied on ... Both the task force and Operation warp speed that's the very teams Biden used. Then God... or we would be in so much more trouble than we find ourselves with so many more dead, so many more infected...
It was Fauchi that gave his sarcastic giggle when he talked about Trump's prediction to have a vaccine within 8 to 12 months... We have three vaccines in 8 months, and Fauchi wearing an egg on his simply liberal face...
Facts are hard to take are they not?Your ignorance of basic facts makes you the last person to lecture someone on the topic. Proof of Trump ignoring science, it's all over the place if you'd care to open your eyes.
Trump on Science:
This man from the first case of covid downplayed the severity, costing American lives. He lied to you, to all of us. It'll just go away on it's own one day was a great statement.
The science clearly said masks work, but there you have Trump railing against their usage.
And again, Trump's administration ignored the science when warned a year before the pandemic. That's how we got where we are today.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … rpt-474322There is nothing in my comment that is not factual. You can't dispute my facts so as always you become very defensive. If something in my comment is not factual, quote it. I will give sources as I am known to do. I don't spout off with statements that I can't back. I do offer some opinions, and as a rule, I can back those up as well. It would seem more ignorant to make an attempt to insult someone just because you can.
I will keep an eye open for any quotes you had a problem with.
I did look at your article out of politeness--- I certainly did not find any information that Trump himself was made aware of a problem virus in Wuhan in 2018. Not sure how one could hold him responsible for the discretion of his administration not notifying him.Facts? You can't even spell Fauci correctly.
It's not really the facts you listed but the numerous ones you left out. I listed multiple factual events of Trump ignoring the science and even decided to leave out the infamous disinfectant episode that many of his supporters misunderstood while injecting themselves with bleach.
And you can sit there and blame Biden for every fault the country has, but when I provide concrete facts that Trump's administration was warned about that Wuhan lab and did nothing, suddenly the man is not responsible? Your double standards are immense. Not that I blamed Trump in my claim, I blamed his inept administration for not seeing the dangers and then losing our access to China's labs via his trade war.Certainly spelled Fauci's name wrong...
-- your statement "and one who ignores science did not make the majority of America feel very safe at all."
I offered an appropriate reply in regard to your comment. I offered my thoughts as to why I found your comment not factual. I offered the fact it was Trump that turned to the scientist very quickly and formed the task force that was pretty much all Scientists and doctors. I might add he listened to them, and supported their suggestions in closing the country, as well as their list of suggested mitigations. He closed travel from China, Biden said that Trump had a “record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering.” And now he did the same... He is a hypocrite.
The country pretty much a majority of the country anyway, did their part as Trump's task force asked. Even though there were many flip-flops along the way.
I completely realize you dwelled on Trump's words, that's your right. I could have cared less what he said at that point, I wanted action, I saw action. There is a difference, I don't like feckless speeches, I needed problems solved. And I feel he did good job-solving problems as they came up. he did so well getting out of PPE, and vent, and pop-up hospitals. He gets things done, he is not a "Let me get up a committed, I will get back to ya.,," That's your guy. I am very thankful he was in the White House during this crisis. I can not even imagine what would have gone down under Biden. I can see how ineffective he is in solving any problems, let alone a true crisis. Thus far we have more cases and more deaths in Joe's short time in office. Biden claimed " I’m never going to raise the white flag and surrender. We’re going to beat this virus. We’re going to get it under control, I promise you." He claimed to have a three-step plan... I have seen zip. He was going to increase tracing... Just never got around to it. You hang your hat on all of Joe's words... He sure does offer up words, and nothing else.
Why even compare Trump to Biden? Trump is gone, up need to be bragging up your guy, I mean he says all the right words. LOL But just does zip. For me, I love defending Trump, because he fatally had accomplishments. Yes, his words were really crap. But his deeds are pretty dam good in my book.
And you dare bring up stupid statements Trump made. This is laughable. Do you need a list of stupid crazy Biden statements?Deleted
" I like that he has pledged to make unity and compromise central to his time in office." - Yes, he has made a little progress toward that, but whether he is largely successful or not depends on the other party's willingness to be bi-partisan. He is certainly trying but he is meeting tons of entrenched resistance.
Don't you mean it depends on how willing the other party is to simply swallow, hook, line and sinker, whatever Biden or Democrats shove at them?
I haven't seen any compromise or unity from either one - just disgust that opponents won't cheerfully accept anything and everything Democrats push for.
As always seems to come down to, "compromise" means "Do what I want you to or you aren't compromising".Deleted
I would have agreed...were it not that "infrastructure" in the bill often means big spending for specific party programs that have nothing at all to do with infrastructure.
So "compromise" here means if you will give me my dream projects you can repair the failing infrastructure of the nation. Yes, it was bi-partisan and yes there was compromise. But I'm really sick of bills chock full of pork that have nothing to do with the bill itself because that's the only way to get it passed. Put it into something truly needed and refuse to give that need unless a "compromise" accepts the pork.Deleted
I'm sure there are lots of people in other states that, if they realize what Cassidy did, will be a little ticked off that they are being required to pay for what residents of Louisiana want but don't want to pay for.
That's a pet peeve of mine - that so much of what states spend is going through the feds, to be split up as Congress wishes. Far better (for both states and the country) if states pay their own way and do without if they don't wish to. Our tax burden would certainly fall precipitously if the wish list of 50 states were not being funded out of the pocketbooks of other people rather than state residents. It's one thing to help out in an emergency (presuming it was not caused by the state in need) - it's another to simply fill the wish lists of others, with zero benefit to the one footing the bill.
No, we are NOT the same in wishing that our senators and representatives would bill people across the country for what we want but are too cheap to pay for. Some of us don't see that procedure as fair, reasonable or beneficial to the nation.Remember, that any Republican, like Cassidy, who works across the aisle is called a RINO today, lol.
Hmmm, let's see if you speak the truth with "means big spending for specific party programs that have nothing at all to do with infrastructure."
In looking at the bill I found the following for the new spending:
- $110 billion for roads, bridges, and major infrastructure projects
- $40 billion bridge repair and replacement
- $16 billion for very large/college projects
- $11 billion for transportation safety
- $1 billion for community upgrade
- $39 billion for rail and transit
- $11 billion for grants for intercity rail
- $66 billion for passenger and rail improvement
- $65 billion for broadband upgrade
- $17 billion for airports, ports, and waterways
- $8 billion for electric vehicles
- $55 billion to upgrade water system infrastructure
- $65 billion to upgrade the electric grid
- $50 billion to making systems more resilient
Which of those are the "party spending" you were referring to?Deleted
"Trying to take some credit." - I was sitting with a young Democrat helping man a voter registration booth today - he said exactly the same things.
Is there a reason you cherry picked the bill, choosing only those things that really are repair of our failing infrastructure?
Was there a reason you left out the $174B for electric vehicles, which has nothing to do with infrastructure? The bill is the marquee of the Democratic climate change fight, which again has nothing to do with repairing failing infrastructure.
Was there a reason you left out $400B to improve access to care for the elderly, and to expand Medicaid? When did Medicaid become "infrastructure"?
Was there a reason to leave out the $100B for new schools? Again, when did schools become "infrastructure"?
Why did you leave out the $180B for R&D for semiconductors and computers, along with ideas for jobs in that will help global warming? When did semiconductors become "infrastructure" - are they part of the support columns for bridges?
Many of the "investments" come with rules that the country will pay the very highest prices for the work being done and making it easier for gig workers to unionize. How does this help re-build our infrastructure?
The bill will replace thousands of federal vehicles with EV's - how is that "infrastructure"?
$7.5B will go to buy EV school buses. How is this considered "infrastructure"?
$21B is earmarked to clean up superfund sites. Hardly "infrastructure", is it?
The bottom line is that a minority of the package goes towards our needs for infrastructure repair. The majority goes to Democrat wish lists, expanded broadband, rail and the like that, while nice, are not repairing anything at all. The only way a great deal of this boondoggle can be considered "infrastructure" is to expand the term to mean "anything Democrats want".What cherry picked? That is it for new expenditures. You must be looking at a different bill.
What $175 billion for electric vehicles? I only found $8 billion ( 7.5 actually) And you do realize, don't you, that this is 2021 and not 1921. Things and definitions change even if you don't like it.
What $400 billion for the elderly? I didn't see anything in their about Medicare. Which bill are you looking at?
What $100 billion for new schools. Didn't see that either, lol.
Didn't see the $21 billion for superfund sites as well. Exactly what ARE you looking at.
In any case, based on your objections, you appear to be against electric vehicles. cleaning up the environment, improving our schools, helping the elderly,
Why are you so HUNG UP on semantics?
https://whyy.org/articles/roads-transit … ture-bill/
We need to get back to the days of Sen Bob Dole (who I mostly opposed, but greatly respected)
Nope, I don't mean that, that is the Republican way. But I do mean they need to engage their brains and actually try to compromise - something that Trump will castigate them for if they do.
And yet...Democrats have offered nothing, and accepted very nearly nothing, in the way of compromise. They have the power at the moment so have no need to compromise...and will not do so.
I for one hope the Republicans stand very strong against all of the new administration's agenda, especially BBB. We as Republicans better realize it's time to be heard, and push back with all they have.
Words do have consequences. But beyond the words are the actions of undermining the science. The inaction that his administration took in regards to the danger of the Wuhan lab - those were not words. The choice to shun mask wearing in defiance of his own CDC - not words. The choice to hold rallies and pack people into venues in defiance of social distancing guidelines given by the CDC during a pandemic that literally killed Herman Cain - not words, but reckless actions. The choice to undermine Fauci because he was seen as more popular and a threat to Trump's narcissism.
These are actions you omit. Then you have the gall to blame Biden for Trump supporters not trusting the government enough to get vaccinated while you sit there and ignore the messaging of a dangerous lunatic who told those same people that Biden was not duly elected. That he stole the presidency and did not concede defeat which is a necessary step in helping the losing side's followers turn their support to the next administration. And then he organized and incited an insurrection against his own government. Your complete lack of vision to see the causality of those actions as a reason why his supporters lag in vaccination rates and are extending this pandemic is why we have to keep reminding you how Trump's ACTIONS have undermined our democracy as well as the goal of ending this pandemic.
Your rose-colored glasses to all things Trump really just shows a level of ignorance that isn't much worth debating, to be honest. Your continued revisionist history to avoid the ugly parts of the Trump presidency gets old."The inaction that his administration took in regards to the danger of the Wuhan lab - those were not words"
Yes, whoever decided not to share the information should take the blame.
Not wearing the mask was his choice. A poor choice.
" The choice to undermine Fauci because he was seen as more popular and a threat to Trump's narcissism."
Let me remind you he could have fired Fauci. He kept him and I never heard him say a disparaging word about the man. he followed his advice to the end.
"why we have to keep reminding you how Trump's ACTIONS have undermined our democracy as well as the goal of ending this pandemic."
What you feel about Trump is your opinion. Not sure why you would feel that this opinion is felt by a majority here on this forum.
You should realize this statement is very presumptuous. I don't think you speak for others here on HP. Yes, maybe a few LOL.
My comments offer facts not just a view much of the time, I must say, you ramble as and don't really back up your views much of the time. You certainly don't respect other spaces to voice their opinions. You lash out with words like ignorance. You don't debate, you rarely answer questions that are posed. You just flip to another subject or seek to insult.
" Your continued revisionist history to avoid the ugly parts of the Trump presidency gets old."
This is laughable --- It is you that ruminates on Trump. One can't have a conversation with you where it does not turn to Trump. I think anyone here will agree with me on this matter.
I have not and don't intend to defend his accomplishments, and keep to the truth on where I found fault. You see, I am not on one path. I tell it how I see it, I don't care if one on the other end does not agree. I don't ever bend to contribute to any form of groupthink. Now that is what I find shows a true level of ignorance.
We all have opinions... I got news yours means nothing more than mine.You are not on one path? Bullcrap. Your single path is to blame Biden for everything under the sun while ignoring much of what he inherited from a president that oversaw the decimation, and topping that off by denying any progress being made under Biden's watch. Discussing the path that led us to these problems is relevant - just because you constantly wish to ignore the causes of these issues because you want to try and convince everyone that Biden is a bad leader because that is what your are brainwashed by your Fox News viewership to regurgitate. Well, sorry, many of us aren't buying your falsehoods about the origins of these problems.
So if you want to spew that false rhetoric on here, be prepared to hear opinions that disagree and call you out for all the things you omit from living in a far-right propaganda bubble.I live in here and know. I don't in any respect ruminate on the past. Not sure once again why you feel you speak for others here. I think most do very well expressing themselves without your help. And I would surmise some would not want you speaking for them.
Again I back my views as a rule with information. And I truely could care less about what you think of me. I think those that post here can see you handle yourself very poorly, and have few social skills when it comes to conversing. One only needs to read your comments to realize that. I will step away from this conversation with you. Sorry nit taking your hook."I don't in any respect ruminate on the past. " - Then you consign yourself to repeating mistakes.
I am very current with my post all of the time. You look at current news as mistakes that would be your problem. One can't even find one of your posts that does not pull one back into Trump's world. This is very evident, one only needs to browse a bit into any and all your comments. You should really take note of this.
We have a new president, he creates tons of news... You need to address current topics with current information. It's fine to dispute, but the compare game is getting so old. And with all that is going on you might ask
yourself --- "why am I still obsessed with Trump"?" You look at current news as mistakes " - ??
" One can't even find one of your posts that does not pull one back into Trump's world. " - That would be true. Why? As I said many times before, Trump needs to be front and center in every American's mind because he IS an existential threat to American democracy (something you don't deny which implies you go along with his efforts.)
BTW, Trump, and many of his supporters think he is still president. That Christmas event I mentioned earlier had a Trump paraphernalia booth with a sign way up in the sky proclaiming, falsely, Trump Won, lol. Now tell me he isn't a danger and should NOT be ignored
Sorry for not falling for your hook... Laughable. Not sure anyone here wants you speaking for them. You are falling back on the air, I doubt very much if the majority here support your views or the way you express them.
To note that others are also pushing back against your repeated and false views about Biden is not speaking for them. You've proven time and again when you post your forum topics you rely heavily on Fox News for the sourcing of your views on the country. Well, the Fox News view is one of hate for the opposing party, something you emulate here. If we wanted to listen to that garbage, we would just watch Fox News.
And I'm pretty sure there are many here that support that view, even if I'm more blunt in its delivery."And I'm pretty sure there are many here that support that view, even if I'm more blunt in its delivery."
Approximately as many as support the view that CNN, MSN, etc. are nothing but liberal rags from the far left.
It's sad when no matter what data is provided the reply is that the source is worthless when it isn't what is desired or doesn't match our own bias. When only sources with our own bias tell the truth.I guess you didn't know that the viewership of those channels cuts across all political ideologies. except Trumpers - they congregate almost exclusively with Fake Fox News and other far right propaganda outlets.
Fake Fox News, on the other, is viewed almost exclusively by Trumpers and conservatives with a few liberals sprinkled in.
I will support Sharlee to this extent - I don't see in her posts the "hate" and racism that comes through loud and clear from other Trumpers. I think she stays far away from that type of rhetoric.
[b]But,[b] I do object to and will keep highlighting the plainly false narratives she seems bent on trying to get people to believe.Please provide what you call my false narrative. I will be glad to defend my opinion if I have an idea of what you refer to. Your statement is vague, leading.
Are you referring to my opinions, my ideologies, or my reporting current news?
You do know we all have a right to our own beliefs, and views, do you not? Or do you feel you have the right to feel your views, your beliefs are just written in cement, more worthy of mine? I find this fascinating.
I would appreciate you dispute my facts, with facts not just your opinion. I certainly realize you do not want to see or read my post that points out current negative news in regard to Biden or his administration. That would be your problem. I have every right to post information. You certainly can dispute or disprove it with facts. However, your opinion is yours, and not actually factual much of the time.
I have derived reports from Fox, and I as a rule give a couple of sources to back a news report. Unfortunately, Fox does report the negative in regard to Biden, and I have noted lately so have most left-leaning networks started to report current Biden news. So I will be using many other sources now that other outlets have decided to report news, instead of filter it.
You do know it's your prerogative to report any of my comments to HP as well as my threads. I would be content with HP's opinion on my posts.
And, I have every confidence that others that post here can speak for themselves. I am respectful of others' opinions, and I do feel most here could at best agree with that.
The only one's pushing back would be you, and ECO. All others are respectful of how they converse. It is very much expected on a political forum people will disagree. It is also common to agree to disagree, or just respect that we all have the right to offer an opinion.
I have tried very hard to work around the specific way you at times converse. I am fully aware many think a keyboard is open grounds to insult others' thoughts, and opinions. But, I find it odd when one feels they speak for others on a forum. One thing I have learned in regard to this forum, the users are most of the time respectful, can be funny, snarky, interesting as well as intelligent. I really feel they are outgoing enough to speak for themselves. So, why don't you just try to cool it just a bit, and take note of others' conduct here?
Pass by my current news or better yet dispute the report without playing the comparison game. Comparing does not change the current guys mistake." and I have noted lately so have most left-leaning networks started to report current Biden news. " - News flash, they have been all along, and Biden is getting irritated by all of the over-the-top misleading, negative headlines to get you to read it. When you do, you find that whatever the subject was is not nearly as bad, or isn't bad at all. And that includes CNN.
But you didn't finish "I offered the fact it was Trump that turned to the scientist very quickly and formed the task force that was pretty much all Scientists and doctors." with "and then refused to listen to them, even contradicting and belittling them, while interfering with CDC guidance and bringing on a quack doctor to push his anti-Covid message". Why did you leave that "fact" out??
"I might add he listened to them, and supported their suggestions in closing the country, as well as their list of suggested mitigations. " - Yes, he [b]started out that way for the first month (if that long), but then went on a months long attack of those same scientists he said he believed - a FACT that you ignored
I'll tell you what would have gone down under Biden - 400,000 more people would be alive because Biden would have taken Covid seriously and not downplayed it. And that is not counting the number of people of died after Biden took office because of Trump's almost total failure to protect America. Further, because you will probably bring this up, most of those who have died after Biden took office lies primarily at the feet of Republicans who refuse to get vaccinated and become parties, IMO, to voluntary homicide. Said another way, if Republicans had gotten vaccinated at the same rate as Democrats did, 1) we would not have over 800,000 dead today and 2) we probably would be at herd immunity. But NO, these people choose to let themselves, their kids, their loved ones, their friends, and strangers die because of their selfishness.
"But just does zip. " - Why do you keep repeating this debunked lie?
"Trump is gone," - it sounds like you have tuned out the news
"I love defending Trump, because he fatally had accomplishments. " - Yes, many of his so-called accomplishments were fatal. They were fatal to immigrants, Kurds, but mostly Americans. It was TRUMP's plan that Biden stupidly followed that led to the debacle we saw in Afghanistan, a plan that would have led to much more misery, death, and heart-ache had Biden not extended the withdrawal date to when he did. Yes, go ahead and defend that masterpiece.
While your at defending Trump, defend his decision to downplay Covid, [i]one that he admitted to, which led to so many excess deaths. Defend his plan to abandon the Kurdish to their arch enemies, the Turks. Here are some other things Trump did you can defend:
1. The child separation policy (and don't say Obama did it to, he didn't as a matter of policy like Trump did)
2. Putting the world in greater danger by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord
3. Putting at least the Middle East, if not the world, in greater danger by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. They are NOW on the verge of building a nuclear weapon unless Biden is successful in stopping them.
4. His attack on the successful Affordable Care act, which, if it had worked, would have led to the misery and death of millions of Americans from whom he took medical coverage away.
5. His outright support of Racism
6. Enlisting foreign help to get elected in 2020 and his acceptance of Russian help for 2016.
7. His use of YOUR tax dollars to line his own pockets
8. His tax give-away to the rich which did nothing for the economy
9. His policy of lying at every opportunity
This is the SHORT LISTBlah Blah Blah --- stuck on Trump just where the left media wants you. Too bad there is a shi- storm of real current news going on in the Country. Maybe you have not heard we have a new body in the White House.
"stuck on Trump" - That is turning into your favorite go-to when those of us who really care about America talk about the most dangerous man in America right now. I get the feeling you don't care whether our democracy survives or not, so long as he becomes president again.
The inflation caused by broken supply chains during the pandemic, prior to Biden's election, continues to be the one broken record of shi-storm news. And once Biden fixes those, suddenly there will be some new 'crisis' fabricated by the right. Everything is a crisis when a democrat sits in the White House to right-wing media.
If he is in the current News, (which yes he often is) I am more than willing to converse about a news report. I think we both care very much about our democracy. We just have different opinions on how to keep it intact. As I have said so many times, I do hope Trump does not run in 202. I feel this way for so many reasons... The best reason, I feel if he would win it would permanently divide this country, and lead to increasing a very hateful division. So, hopefully, this is the last time I need to share my thoughts on the " if come" of trump running in 2024.
I want Trump to stay retired, I appreciated his agenda, his job performance, but I know we can do better.
Yes, real news, (which you prefer to ignore so you can continue your BDS attack) such as:
- Jobs have never been more secure
- Bosses have stopped firing people
- First time unemployment filings at historic lows (at least since 1967)
- Almost everybody who wants a job can find a job
- GDP at record highs
- Unemployment below the historic average
- Consumer spending at record highs
- The bi-partisan infrastructure bill will be adding more jobs to the economy and improving America's crumbling infrastructure shortly as it ramps up.
Why do you ignore all of these things? Because it makes Biden look good? I won't say he is the best president ever, but he beats the hell out of Trump and RINO Bush II (I sort of liked RINO Bush I). I'll even say RINO Reagan and RINO Nixon did reasonably good jobs. (I am using Trump's definition of RINO, btw).You present this list as if it is all great news. It isn't.
When employers no longer feel they can fire sub-standard employees, retaining them (often at excessive wages) it is good for neither the employer nor the consumer buying the product that employee produces.
GDP is at record highs ONLY because of the massive giveaway programs and because wages have increased. Both result in inflation, reducing or eliminating any real gain for most and producing a very real loss for millions.
What often looks very good sometimes isn't upon deeper examination.So you prefer a low GDP, I see. Of course that makes no sense to me.
Americans still after months left in Afghanistan... Need I say more?
And your point in the larger scheme of things?
Besides, old news has it that at the end of Oct, there were 89 Americans [b[ready to depart[/b] and another 248 that may or may not want to leave. 140 had left the week previously. I couldn't find any current report.
How come you won't focus on the good news rather than let your BDS influence your commentary?
" he did so well getting out of PPE, " - I am again forced to point out one of your false statements - Trump failed miserably at providing PPE! Miserably
You must have heard this from Trump and unfortunately believed yet another LIE - "We shipped hundreds of millions of masks, gloves and gowns to our frontline health care workers. To protect our nation’s seniors, we rushed supplies, testing kits, and personal — to nursing homes, we gave everything you can possibly give and we’re still giving it because we’re taking care of our senior citizens,"
Here is the TRUTH: "In the early days of the pandemic, the Trump administration did indeed procure millions of supplies, even flying personal protective equipment (PPE) in from overseas, with much fanfare and often exaggerated numbers.
But Trump (and you) fails to mention that the shortages of PPE and critical testing supplies are ongoing.
One in five U.S. nursing homes faced severe shortages of PPE this summer (2020), according to a study released in August. The American Medical Association decried the “persistent shortage” of N95 masks and other protective equipment yesterday."
I'll let you read the rest of the Truth here.
One in five U.S. nursing homes faced severe shortages of PPE this summer, according to a study released in August. The American Medical Association decried the “persistent shortage” of N95 masks and other protective equipment yesterday.Trump procured millions of supplies...but because he didn't provide enough for the next decade he was a complete, total, 100% failure in doing anything about the shortage of masks, etc.
Your bias and hatred is showing through, and completely twisting reality out of shape. You can't even be consistent paragraph to paragraph.
800,000 dead people from Covid. Trump is responsible for most of those. Since Delta, Republicans are responsible for most of the rest by not getting vaccinated.
"He made decisions quickly," - And as a result, made very poor ones almost 100% of the time.
"We have over 100 thousand unaccompanied children in America due to Biden's poor immigration stance. " - Sorry. !) Biden has roughly the same immigration stance as Trump, relative the border, just without the draconian implementation and 2) it is the Republican's fault that all of those people rushed the border because they kept lying that the border was open when, in fact, Biden [b]kept it closed[/b\
"This man from the first case of COVID took it upon himself to form a team of scientists. " - That was for show and we all know it because Trump ignored virtually everything they recommended and trusted quacks and shut down science. Hydrocloroquine, indeed! LOL
Deleted
"I'd like to see our country move away from the "my half" "your half" mentality."
Nice thought, but in my view not realistic... Who gives in? And mentally we have two sides due to very diverse different ideologies, and different ideas on which way we hope that America will progress. Ideologies are very far apart.
Where do you find even a glimmer of bipartisanship?
In my view -- Democracy and country will flourish if we keep to our Constitution, a document that gave us what we needed to keep our Democracy. I find it promising to see a few politicians from both parties are attempting to work together to get things done. These Representatives a hard to find. I must ask, you don't feel the few Dems that are bucking Bidens BBBare not being vilified? I have read much about how the two that are bucking the bill are being very much vilified, and tormented by citizens in general.
I am a glass-half-full kind of person also. But, I keep an open mind and don't dance around anything that I find negative. If it'd negative
outwardly negative, my head stays out of the sand.
Our Government was meant to be give and take. It is not at this point.
" If every four years the idea is to elect someone just to subvert and suppress the "other side," we are headed for a world of trouble."
Here is how I have always looked at this --- Every four years we have the ability to glean what we liked about an administration. We have the right to weigh what we thought was good or negative, we have the right to develop an idea of what was the best ideologies, which were the worse.
It's up to us to determine the best from the worst. We learn, we strive to see what America needs every 8 years... We do our best to research what candidate can fulfill the present needs.
In the last decade, we have seen president after president cancels out much of what the prior president did. It is something to really look at and consider that each president actually canceled on their predecessor. Some do well and one can see there was no vendetta to cast, some not so well... Some cut off our face to spite our nose.Along with your last paragraph, one of the things I see that is of great concern is the refusal to accept defeat, or even a well constructed compromise.
Examples are abortion and gun control. Pro-lifers have worked for decades to negate RvsW. If they can't do it via the law they will use whatever other weapons they can find. Defund Planned Parenthood, which does an enormous amount of good in this country. Go after doctors, nurses, even cab drivers that "assist" in getting an abortion. Never give up the fight no matter what compromise is reached - only the banning of all abortions is acceptable.
Same with gun controls; When SCOTUS declares for the second amendment, find another route to disarm the public. Make guns too expensive to buy or own. Make them ever harder to purchase. Hold gun manufacturers responsible for what people do with their own gun. Once more, the fight will not end until the public is disarmed.
This kind of attitude - Compromise only for today, tomorrow we will try a different method of getting what we actually want - is not acceptable. IMO."Democracy and country will flourish if we keep to our Constitution" - I agree. Too bad Trump and the Republicans didn't
Cancelling out. Yes, that is true. Trump cancelled out the good things Obama did and Biden had to cancel out all of the bad things Trump did.
I agree, that is why I almost always vote FOR something. Even though I know Trump would have destroyed America even further, I voted for Biden because I support his agenda (save for leaving Afghanistan).
"I in no respect supported what is called "Big Lie"." - If you want to vote for him a third time, you certainly do. But, if you won't vote for him because of the Big Lie then you have turned a corner.
"I felt the country was safe under Trump, " - That is truly an unbelievable statement! There is SO many facts to disprove that
" I liked the economy and the direction he was taking the promising Obama economy," - You do understand, don't you, that the "promising" Obama economy lasted SIX years before Trump continued what Obama started. Why do you keep changing history?
"I liked his immigration policies, " - You mean you supported taking children away from their parents as a detergent? Or forcing people seeking asylum to stay in squalid, dangerous conditions in Mexico, you think that was a good thing? Shame.
"I liked his vision with making the US energy independent " - LOL. Then you must LOVE Obama since HE is the one who made America energy independent, NOT Trump.
"we are not any longer energy-independent" - Yes, we still are
Fortunately, even more people will be voting for Biden for the same reason, out of total fear of how Republicans will destroy America.As I have said to you many times. I feel we are in a period where one needs to consider the pros and cons when choosing a candidate. Looking at who would best be able to do the job. In the case of Trump versus Biden, I took many hours looking for anything that would tell me that Biden could lead - I found nothing. I totally liked how Trump handles the job minus his personality. Very simply I feel one must be able to solve problems. I had no real choice but ITrump. This is my opinion, you seem to think yours is the last word. That does not float with me. I can respect your opinion, and not seek to criticize it. Your corner just is not my corner.
Again I felt safe under Trump, and have offered reasons many times, not willing to beat a dead horse. I certainly do not in any respect feel safe under Biden. And I am very sure the people he left in Afganastan don't either. He is a weak man, and he appears to have no Governing skills at all.
AS I claimed Trump took Obamas promising economy and made it better. That's how I see it. You are defensive without reason...
Again I supported Trump's immigration policies. All of them. Migrants knew of the policy when they walked in with their children, I would put all blame on the parent that put their child in danger, and separation. WE have legal means to come to America. That is the last word I have on this subject. You have your opinion on the subject it differs from mine.
Your energy comment in regard to Obama not even signifying an answer. That is plain out ridiculous And np we are not in any respect energy independent. However, believe whatever you please. In my view, your comment is once again ridiculous. Not sure how you would have the nerve to even write such a statement. Biden has been begging OPEC for oil, and oil before long will be at $100.00 per barrel. I'll get back to you when it does. So, be ready to blame Trump ---LOL
"Fortunately, even more people will be voting for Biden for the same reason, out of total fear of how Republicans will destroy America."
You have topped yourself with this one... Guess you ignore the polls and all the negativity that surrounds Biden. That's
your problem. The Dem voters are supporting him in low numbers. I think the stats show 77% at this point and falling weekly.
Isn't it so very sad that those who believe Trump's Big Lie want to perpetuate that lie by being the most enthusiastic to vote in 2022.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/politics … index.htmlJust went to man the Democratic Register to Vote Booth at the Ruby Red Starke, FL Christmas parade and what did I see high in the sky? The Big Lie in the form of a sign lying that Trump, lol, (I guess they are on Santa's naughty list for lying.) Below it was a booth hawking Trump paraphernalia.
We did have one lady who stopped by and confessed she was a secret Democrat. As she pointed her finger down her throat she admitted her husband was (point, point) a Trumper. When I asked her if she was registered to vote she said HELL yes she was and walked off with a smile.The Trump propaganda outlet Fake Fox News lost another journalist who TRIED to do an honest job - but they wouldn't let him; Chris Wallace. He just refused to turn into another Carlson or Hannity, who, whether they know it or not, are mouthpieces for our sworn enemy, Russia.
Chris moved on to a more honest network - CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/12/media/ch … index.htmlYou know what one of the most watched shows in Russia is? You guessed it, Fake Fox News.
"The person organizing the coups is the then current president, Donald Trump, and his minions. The nescient coups attempt began months before the election as Trump laid the groundwork to falsely claim the election was rigged in the event he lost in November. Fast forward to the election and Trump did lose and he started implementing his plan to overthrow the will of the people."
I assume this is your opinion? I have seen no evidence thus far to substantiate your claims. Or just say it's your opinion.
CNN format may well be overhauled in 2022 Not sure how your system will take a real news network.
"There’s a place for CNN in the proposed $43 billion combination of WarnerMedia and Discovery, billionaire media mogul John Malone told CNBC in a recorded interview that aired Thursday.
“I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing,” said the cable TV pioneer and longtime chairman of Liberty Media, which is a major shareholder in Discovery. “I do believe good journalism could have a role in this future portfolio that Discovery-TimeWarner’s going to represent.”
Back in May, AT&T announced a deal to combine its content unit WarnerMedia with Discovery. Under the agreement, AT&T will unwind its $85 billion acquisition of TimeWarner, which closed just about three years ago and form a new and separate media company with Discovery. It will bring together AT&T-owned CNN, HBO and the Warner Bros. studio and Discovery’s channels, including Animal Planet, TLC and its namesake Discovery Channel. At the time of the announcement, the parties had said they hoped to close the transaction in the middle of next year."
Guess we will need to just wait to see what goes down.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/18/john-ma … y-out.htmlThen you haven't looked. At the moment, it is my opinion, but it is an informed opinion based on an overwhelming amount of evidence that is out in the public sphere. There is no telling what the committee has learned behind closed doors. Hell, even Meadow's book and emails/texts that have been made are so damning.
It's not an opinion to say Trump began undermining the election results prior to election. He began programming his supporters to believe that he could only lose if there was fraud.
Then he and his propaganda networks ran a media campaign to fabricate things they believed were fraud, but that were just their own uneducated misunderstandings about how elections are conducted.
When those misunderstandings were proven as falsehoods by the courts, they then tried to set aside reality and the laws to remain in power.How does one prove someone programmed a group?
Which "propaganda networks" does Trump own or operate?
Which "misunderstandings" were proven false in a court trial? As none of Trump's how were they "proven false" in courts that accepted no evidence or testimony?You read my mind. I was starting with one question. I would think he could have given an example of what this mysterious network fabricated in regard to fraud, and a court case to match the fabrication that was heard in court...
It's very apparent he believes all of this, and will not or can not just keep to facts when accusing Trump of all these many things. This is just not fair play at all. As I have said -- pick a crime, condemn him for the crime --- then try to dig up non-existing evidence.
This kind of thinking is so half-ass-backward. Not to mention unfair, and dangerous.I'm sorry you need this information spoon-fed to you, I always assume that after you claim to be so educated on these topics that you have heard about obvious cases like the Nevada man who claimed that someone voted using his dead wife's identity and how Republicans and Tucker Carlson all amplified his claims. Right up until it turns out his cheating, Republican butt got sentenced for the crime.
I could certainly list numerous other examples, but spoon-feeding you proof, proof that you don't accept and then forget with a few weeks as you fall back on your own disinformation, gets tiresome.Not spoon-fed. I don't buy into ridiculous if comes... You divert when cornered, that's what you do. The "Nevada man" I have no knowledge of that man, and as I have said many times, I don't watch Tucker. I am in no way educated in any form of conspiracy BS... Not sure how you would even get that idea. I do not follow conspiracy theories. Do you even read the subjects you post?
If you have examples maybe you could identify a name. LOL, Not a guy from here or there.
Obviously, you can't answer any of the questions with any real facts to back up what you have claimed.
A guy from Nevada, come on... And you forget, I excepted the election outcome and moved on. I have claimed many times if fraud occurred it would be of the run-of-the-mill kind we have every election, and the numbers would not in any way change the election. It seems you forget easily. I had hoped in the days after the election when so many people that worked the polls sighed affidavits that they witnessed fraud --- that they be respected and their complaints investigated quickly by Congress and put to rest. Certainly, this simple task could have put a sharp end to all the crap.Spoon-fed. It's a well known case and a simple google search would help you learn the details. But since that seems beyond your capabilities, here, have some real facts to make your claim that I cannot back up what I claim statement look like idiocy.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho … e-n1284011
And then to connect the dots, go search for Carlson's amplification of those claims and the Republicans who did the same. It's something I have done because these issues matter when showing the lies coming from the current GOP.
Here are many other links to sites clearly not in your media cocoon:
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc … ot-in-2020
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/23/us/v … evada.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ter-fraud/
https://nypost.com/2021/10/24/nevada-ma … -election/
https://apnews.com/article/las-vegas-vo … 44a8f1d665
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/20 … -election/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/cou … n-2478838/
Shocker that you take his to mean owns while it was meant as those in support of. Another example of you seeing words as how you want and not in the entirety of ways they can be used.
Your claim that courts did not accept evidence or testimony claim is always a massive lie. It's not even worth engaging you when you are this deluded. Especially when we've gone over all this before with you.
This is one of those great examples I noted earlier, where we have debunked your BS, and then you return to the same lies.Ah. If a TV station reports what the President says it means they support that President. Strange method of assigning their political ambitions, but perhaps it has merit.
So? Point to one case, brought by Trump, that made it into the courtroom for evidence and testimony. Can't? Then don't make false claims that a court "proved" anything at all.
Yes, there is BS here. And the same lies we've heard before - that the courts tried Trump's case and found it false.I guess to show your lies, I will have to spoon-feed you.
'In a wide-ranging federal lawsuit, the Trump campaign sued over alleged irregularities in the way ballots were counted throughout the state of Pennsylvania. They've argued that 14,000 votes should be thrown out. The campaign submitted a revised version of the lawsuit days later that retracted many of its original allegations. A judge threw out the case, saying Trump's lawyers presented the court "with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpaid in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence." An appeal of the case also failed.'
Seems pretty clear a judge reviewed the Trump Campaign's evidence and dismissed it, proving your claim to be horseshi*.
Trump made the claim that his election watchers were not permitted to see the counting multiple times. Then when he filed a court case:
'The campaign sued in yet another federal case to stop Philadelphia County from counting votes without Republicans present. The judge dismissed the case after Trump's lawyers said Republican election watchers were, in fact, present.'
Over in Nevada:
'The Trump campaign filed a different lawsuit in Carson City District Court alleging multiple irregularities that the campaign claimed, without providing specific evidence, would be enough to overturn the election results in Nevada and flip the state to Trump. It failed.'
In Arizona:
'The Trump campaign joined a lawsuit brought by two Republicans in Maricopa County claiming that a substantial number of GOP ballots were invalidated because voters used Sharpies to fill in their choices. There is no evidence that using Sharpies leads to issues with scanning ballots, and, in fact, officials have said using Sharpies is preferred. The Post also reported that the Maricopa County attorney's office said no ballots were rejected and that if they are, voters have an opportunity to cast another one. A Republican-aligned group abandoned the legal fight after Maricopa County officials challenged the factual basis for the lawsuit, and the Trump campaign lost the fight soon afterward.'
As you can see, many actual court cases that reviewed evidence of claims brought directly by Trump's campaign ended up ruling against him because of speculative evidence or just plain misunderstandings by the Trump campaign, like in Arizona, about how elections are run.
One judge basically called Trump and Pence racists too, but that's a whole different line of criticism:
'Trump and Pence personally sued Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in a state court seeking to overturn votes in two Wisconsin counties with large Black populations, both of which sided with Democrats. A judge threw out the case. When Trump appealed the case, another judge rejected it and said it "smacks of racism." An appeal to the Supreme Court also failed.'The fact is we were wondering what network fabricated a report about voter fraud? Did all networks not just report accusations of voter fraud, and follow up at times with the results of court cases trump initiated? That's pretty much what I remember. I don't remember the word accusation not being connected to the fraud complaints that the networks reported.
"One judge", "a judge" "One judge basically called Trump and Pence racists too" This is all just rambling without dates or names.'This is all just rambling without dates or names.'
To make that statement without searching for 'Trump/Pence Wisconsin suit against Biden/Harris' is stupidity. Again, I gave you everything you would need to investigate the statement for yourself. You claim to be this accomplished researcher, but then just dismiss information given to you without checking it out for yourself. Making that statement is just laziness on your part:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wisconsi … 8b42e99e88
And you want to know what is meant by programming, here is a recent Morning Consult Poll done in the Mountain West area:
Voters in the Mountain West believe 51 percent to 38 percent that Biden was legitimately elected, the breakout of Republicans and Democrats tells a different story. A full 87 percent of Democrats say he was elected while only 26 percent of Republicans do. Nearly 50 percent of Republicans say that Biden was definitely not elected legitimately, and 71 percent believe the election was “rigged.”
74% of Republicans still believe the big lie. That's being programmed.Ya know what --- I know this will bust your bubble but all I have to say is Biden is the president for now. I don't care about all this conspiracy stuff. It just does not in any respect interest me. In fact, I think it is not healthy for those that ruminate on it. I am very sure 100% sure if congress finds proof of just about anything they can indite anyone including Trump we will hear about it. Until then I leave this conspiracy to you and ECO. I have no interest in investigating I will leave that up to Congress... Just as I will leave the FBI look into Hunter... I will leave all the investigations up to them.
And, I can't answer or be responsible for how beliefs what or do I care. Biden is living in the White House... Now we can take that to the bank.
You are being obtuse again. You know as well as I do that Fake Fox soc-called News (and the other propaganda outlets) actually "report" on very little - hell they have very few real journalists left working for them after Chris Wallace left yesterday. Instead, they opine, making up things as they go or regurgitating Russian propaganda.
You are sinking further into the quicksand of ridiculousness there, Wilderness. No, If a TV station reports what the President says it DOES NOT mean they support that President. To say otherwise is the definition of being obtuse,
BUT, If a TV station spends most of its air time being a mouthpiece for that President, as Fake Fox so-called News does, it DOES MEAN they support that President.
Wilderness loves to use semantics to sharpshoot and make non-sensical points.
It is clear he has never read the opinions in any of those 60-odd cases that were tossed in the trash.
You lay out all the times he made that claim in the media. Then you add the testimony of those that attacked the Capitol and claimed Trump motivated them to do it. Which are multiple cases at this point.
Then you lay out all the court cases that showed Trump's claims were lies, followed by him continuing to repeat those lies.
Pretty simple actually and what the January 6 committee, who have stated that Trump bears responsibility for the attack, as did Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy by the way, are in the process of proving. Not to mention multiple judges that came to that conclusion already also after hearing evidence during trials.What testimony? Has someone claimed Trump contacted them with a plan to riot at the Capitol? Does someone have some evidence of this? Does one have the right to believe or not believe what someone else is saying? How do you prove Trump brainwashed people? Do you not hear how foolish this all sounds. Perhaps it would be wise to just wait and see what this Congressional committee can prove. or will it just be more slanderous accusations against this man, that can't be proved? Not to be rude, but you might want to consider how long you have been promoting things that are not proven to be true.
It is easy for another politician to point a finger, and some did. It would be wonderful to have some proof of your accusations.
It's like you are putting a puzzle together that none of the pieces fit. And for four years this has been your thought --- "by the way, are in the process of proving."
You are surviving on if comes, that just never come...What testimony? Well, I guess it's not surprising that you're not following the convictions of the January 6 insurrectionists. Multiple claims have been made that Trump incited the crowd to violence. And given the numerous statements by members of Congress who also assign blame to Trump for the attack, even by Republican leadership, that can be submitted as proof.
When considering those things, and adding in who helped promote and organize the event, then direct the crowd to the Capitol after riling them up, it's very easy to formulate a conclusion about who did the programming about a stolen election and feeding an anger that should not have existed unless led to believe a wrong had been committed, when there was no proof that it actually had.
To say those statements sound foolish is, as usual, your omission of many factual statements to form a biased opinion to protect Trump and Trumpism, which we all know you to be devoutly tied to." Multiple claims have been made that Trump incited the crowd to violence"
Got a name? Got a date? Got anything? .
" And given the numerous statements by members of Congress who also assign blame to Trump for the attack, even by Republican leadership, that can be submitted as proof. "
Got a name? Got a statement with a name?
Who did Trump tell his plan to? Got a name?
It all sounds foolish without any facts... All of it.
I am devoted to common sense, not wanting to appear so unintelligent that I would accuse anyone without evidence.
Just read your posts they are truely not making any form of sense. None of this is a matter of fact. Hopefully, you realize that. If it's all opinion-oriented, I guess I could say, Ok let's wait to see what shakes out. But in my view, this stuff is pretty flimsy at best.
Odd you stick with that we... YikesSee, here is the difference between you and I. You make a claim, such as Hunter Biden is being investigated. I will go and look into it on my own and see if it's valid. In that case, I did agree there is cause to look into Hunter's actions.
You, on the other hand, can dismiss information readily available in the public domain which I assume you are aware of as a purportedly 'educated' person on the topic of politics.
Instead of checking into my claims, which as noted in a few others posts in this thread can be easily substantiated with multiple articles, you dismiss them out of pure laziness. Instead, requiring me to provide links of things many of us already knew since it's been widely reported about. As above, when I could supply no shortage of eight different links from both liberal and conservative news sites to back up something widely known.
Someone truly devoted to common sense would do some actual investigation before saying something sounds foolish.OMG it would be you that needs to back up your thoughts. I try very hard to back mine. Why post if you can't make your point clear with sources if need be?
Like I said, this should be information known to someone educated on politics. That McConnell and McCarthy both stood on the floor of Congress and said Trump bore responsibility for the attack was both public and well-reported. That you could not understand that's who I referenced, even after naming them in an earlier post and wanting 'names and dates,' only made yourself look foolish.
Deleted
Yes, thousands of claims have been made that Trump incited a riot - among them is yours. And, just like all the others, is completely without merit or proof. Same for the idiots of Congress that assign blame without have facts, or simply on the basis of politics.
Oh, it's easy to formulate a conclusion - any conclusion you want - just make up whatever story you would like and claim it is true.Deleted
Is there a reason that you didn't include the rest of his words? That the march had to be peaceful, that the "fight" was to talk to their congressmen and women?
Why did you not mention that little bit? Why do you claim they "took him at his word" as they did the exact opposite of what he asked for?Deleted
From your link giving his speech: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard". Nothing there about killing people, nothing about breaking in; just to march peacefully and talk.
It is astounding that everyone in the country has been told Trump requested a peaceful march, but ignore it in favor of the media reports that he called for a violent insurrection and killing members of congress.Congrats on finding the one time he said 'peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,' very early in his speech.
The other 59 minutes of his speech was him telling his supporters to fight and lying that the election was stolen and that Biden was an illegitimately elected president.
One minute of peacefulness, fifty-nine of incitement. Wonder which message got through the most?OK - I found the one time he asked for a peaceful march.
Not it's your turn; find at least one time he asked to kill congressmen, or find one time he asked them to break in and destroy the capital. It's in your corner.Because saying that someone stole the presidency and they are a danger to the country could never drive people to violence.
As always, using Eso's quote - obtuse. Under the laws listed in these conversations, he doesn't need to say it as specifically as you just required in your post. Did you even bother to read what we've been discussing? If his speech led to the violence, that makes him guilty. There is plenty of evidence, as I've already listed, that confirms that the violence was based directly on his lies, that his campaign helped in the organization on the 'stop the steal' rally, and that people who committed the violence believed they were doing what Trump had asked them.Put more plainly, you can't. All you can do is supply your "interpretation" of what he said. With your "interpretation" of intent.
Unfortunately, your "interpretation" is rooted in bias and hate rather than reality.Put even more plainly, for what I'm asserting based on the laws we are discussing, I don't need to.
For whatever it is you assert, which is in no way what the laws demand, then you are happy in some alternate universe claiming the case is simply bias and hate. When it is, in fact, rooted in cause and effect. When you have this much misunderstanding of the discussion and the laws governing it, you are pointless to converse with, as usual.
I see you are trying to hang your hat on seven words out of a 70 minute speech filled with inflammatory lies and rhetoric. Since he only said it once in a 70 minute, lie-filled, inflammatory call to action. Reasonable people on a jury will know he was just paying lip service to "peacefully" anything. His army knew what he wanted because they acted on it.
Three court decisions, which I have provided already, said that is all that is needed to convict. If a crowd reacts violently to a speech that speaks to that (and sadly for you, that speech doesn't have to include specific threats.), then that is all that is need for conviction.
And the videos show clearly, with audio, the crowd getting more and more riled up the longer Trump incited them. A reasonable person can easily foresee that nothing good was going to happen.Are these considered "fighting words" as defined in Chaplenski vs New Hampshire (1942), where a unanimous court said this about "fighting words" - Justice Francis W. Murphy, writing for a unanimous court, held that certain written or spoken words are exempt from First Amendment protection when they [/u] instigate violent reactions by listeners[/u], when taken as a whole?
- The title of the rally - Save America
- The slogan of the rally, one used by Trump - Stop the Steal
- "All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by a bold and radical left Democrats ... We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved."
- "Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about."
- "There's never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen."
And the CROWD chants "Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump."
- "And I would love to have if those tens of thousands of people would be allowed the military, the Secret Service ... but I would love it if they could be allowed to come up with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them, please? "
- "We want to go back and we want to get this right because we're going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed and we're not going to stand for that".
- "Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft. And there's never been anything like this. It's a pure theft in American history. Everybody knows it."
- "It's like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we're going to have to fight much harder."
- "And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them."
- "Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong."
- His only reference to non-violence "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. "
- Followed by "Our country has been under siege for a long time. Far longer than this four year period."
- "Constitution says you have to protect our country, and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can't vote on fraud, and fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules."
- "If we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country because it's illegal when the votes are illegal when the way that they got there is illegal, when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information."
- " but I said something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can't have happened and we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."
And the very angry crowd (you can tell that from the video and audio) marches down to the Capitol and proceeds to destroy it.
If you separate the speech from the actions that IMMEDIATELY followed, the speech is protected. BUT, taken together, the speech crosses the line and becomes incitement to riot.
Except, again, you ignore the totality of public facts that people were able to see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears. Both are proof and both have merit in formulating the conclusion that Trump programmed his supporters for months with a lie - one that the election was stolen, riled them up just before the peaceful transfer of power by using the word fight 20 times while saying march peacefully once very early on in his speech (another obvious example of programming), and then directed them to the Capitol.
Taking into account the two-month build up of the constant lying about the election, the statements said on the day of January 6 in a rally his campaign helped organized based on those lies, and the statements of his supporters who were convinced Trump wanted them to stop Congress in order to save America, it is very easy to come to the conclusion Trump incited the riot.
"What testimony? Has someone claimed Trump contacted them with a plan to riot at the Capitol?" - And of course that (using the word plan) is being as obtuse as Wilderness is. What you lay out isn't part of the proof needed to prove Trump incited that insurrection.
"Does someone have some evidence of this?" - As I just said, you don't need that type of evidence. What you are talking about is conspiracy, which isn't being alleged vis-a-vis the insurrectionists. I t may be, however, in Trump's attempt to overthrow the election by other means. With what has come out lately, it seems to me Trump and Meadow's attempt to get state lawmakers to overturn the results in their states amounts to conspiracy"And of course that (using the word plan) is being as obtuse as Wilderness is. What you lay out isn't part of the proof needed to prove Trump incited that insurrection."
I beg to differ last I heard in a court of law one must have evidence to prove a crime. And that evidence can not be of hearsay or one reading in a motive. It would be like me saying --- let's say someone took a can of paint and painted graffiti on Trump tower.
and I stepped up and said ---I have gone back and forth with ECO and said he did it! He really did he put out sighs now for many months that he was going to do something.
You just can't accuse people of crimes without evidence that would stand up in court. One can't come in and say, I just know Trump wanted me to riot at the Capitol... This is just bizarre, and no it would in no respect stand up in court --- thank God. Your dislike for Trump is usurping your good common sense in my view. My gosh, would you want this kind of justice? Where one could be convicted on another thought? Would you really want this?
Fact -- Trump never minced words he felt and still promotes there was fraud in the election. He is hell-bent on keeping that very accusation alive.
It would seem if the DOJ could charge him with anything, I mean anything they would, they will... Thus far many are hellbent on a form of a witchhunt. This is not fair and dangerous to our Democracy. To form these kinds of conspiracies will do the nation no good. In the end, we all should be cooling our jets and see what plays out. If Trump broke the law he will be charged.
If he committed conspiracy and there is proof he will come to be charged and there will be a trial. Trump was impeached and acquitted of both articles of impeachment. Yet he was dragged through two impeachments and carries the stain of both. Do you think it may be time to move on, and just wait to see what occurs? What does all this blustering get in the end?
I have no information on Meadow's emails or his documents that would lead me to believe they were attempting to over through the election. It is obvious Trump di want a Congressional investigation or special counsel. in regards to the election outcome and did not get it. Perhaps if he did we could have put all this to rest. I do realize Barr was not on board with a special counsel, and I trusted his judgment. As I will trust our justice system to weed out a crime if Trump committed a crime. I have not seen any evidence of a crime myself. Only a media that is getting ratings with many accusations of crimes.
Bottom line evidence should come before charging one with a crime..., not the other way around.Deleted
You also have this statute which applies:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383Not one person arrested out of over 750 people has been charged with insurrection. So would this not mean the FBI and the DOJ did not feel any of these people aided Trump in an insurrection? Would not the people that did the deed need to be charged with insurrection before you appoint Trump as a leader of this insurrection?
It is very clear thus far no one has been charged with an insurrection. Not sure why you refer to the riot using that word. I assume this is your view.
Here is the link that lists who was arrested, and what they were charged with. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
Do you have information on anyone being charged with insurrection that I may have missed?Has anyone been charged specifically with insurrection. No, I concede that. Does that mean that the government could not charge Trump as the one who programmed his followers and helped organize the rally to stop the peaceful transfer of power (stop the steal) as a future lesson to losing candidates? Definitely a possibility, especially when you see the details of the three cases below.
One of the three Oath Keepers charged with conspiracy:
Jessica Marie Watkins - Member of Oath Keepers. One of the three who were indicted for conspiracy for planning their activities, alongside Thomas Edward Caldwell and Donovan Crowl. Eight to ten members of the group entered the Capitol wearing paramilitary gear and moving "in an organized and practiced fashion", according to the indictment. The group communicated with portable devices, with one member allegedly receiving a Facebook message reading "All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas."
Should be interesting to hear this guy's case:
Lonnie Leroy Coffman - 70-year-old resident of Falkville, Alabama.[56] He allegedly parked a pickup truck two blocks from the Capitol containing eleven homemade incendiary devices (described as "Mason jars filled with homemade napalm" intended to "stick to the target and continue to burn" in court filings),[76] an AR-15 style rifle, a shotgun, two pistols, a crossbow, a stun gun, and camo smoke canisters.[77][78][79] Court documents said that upon being stopped by police, the man "asked officers whether they had located the bombs", and prosecutors also "suggest[ed] an intent to provide [weapons] to others".[77] Authorities also found handwritten notes listing "purported contact information" for Ted Cruz (R), Fox News host Sean Hannity, and radio host Mark Levin, as well as a list of "bad guys" including Seventh Circuit judge David Hamilton and Rep. André Carson (D–IN), who was referred to as "one of two Muslims in the House".
And there's this winner:
Eric Gavelek Munchel - In a Jan. 24 court filing, federal prosecutors asserted that evidence showed that he engaged in "obstructing Congress, interstate travel in furtherance of rioting activity, sedition and other offenses."
That sedition is mentioned in court filings does lead one toward the ability to use the statute I listed as sedition and insurrection are nearly identical.
Criminal Sedition:
'Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.'
Rebellion or Insurrection:
'Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.'I totally know where you're coming from. I do remember the day Jan 6th and turning off the speech telling my husband Trump should let this go, and that he needed to move on. I was sick when I returned home that day and found a huge riot had occurred, and that people had died.
I can remember commenting to that effect right here on HP's.
In my view, many attended to make trouble. I am unsure thus far if people got together and planned the riot, if so I hope we get to the bottom of this form of plan. It sounds as if some did communicate with one another before the riot.
I have made an effort to keep an open mind, and not make accusations
about what happened on that day. I do feel if trump committed the crime of planning it is up to the DOJ to charge him if any evidence is found.
I think any and all that broke the law that day need to be charged and punished appropriately.
In regard to the speech, I don't feel Trump was telling anyone to riot. I have listened to the speech several times.There is no need for the DOJ to become involved; Trump is already tried and convicted in the media court of the mob. The modern method of a trial of someone you don't like: exaggerate, assume, insinuate and lie until they are already convicted in public opinion.
Yes, it would seem they are once again headed into some sort of useless exhibition as were the two impeachments that lead to Trump being acquitted.
Nope, America needs Justice for what Trump has done to us. A conviction in court is a minimum requirement.
Without any convictions of Trump for anything, all that is left to demonize him is words. Thus "Insurrection"; it sounds much, much worse than riot, particularly as the country appears to have decided that rioting is alright.
And there it is! Your usual false equivalency about rioting versus halting the peaceful transfer of power that Congress was literally in the middle of administering. Typical far-right debate style to leave out that really critical element to this criminal activity.
I truely feel that Trump was persecuted with every trick in the book from the moment he won the primary. No one could persuade me from that opinion.
His every word was demonized. And yes your point is well taken. The media named it and those that disliked Trump claimed it... I can not see how anyone could think that the allegation that he planned an insurrection could ever be logically proved or that he will be indicted for inciting an insurrection.
My common sense tells me we are going back down another vindictive path as we did with the impeachments. What a mess.I don't deny that many people spoke badly about Trump, sometimes as bad as Trump talks about others, but he deserved all of it. He started it with his racist rhetoric coming down the escalator to announce he is running, and he never stopped giving people reason to criticize him, some times severely.
Are you going to tell me you deny that he didn't give us reason to point out his serious, dangerous flaws?As an outsider looking in, with a pretty clear perception, I don't think Trump deserved much of the treatment he received from the media and the Democrats in Washington.
"He started it with his racist rhetoric coming down the escalator to announce he is running, and he never stopped giving people reason to criticize him, some times severely."
What racist statement? Please offer it up.
I did not see the same flaws you did. As I have said I am not a network media person. I think that's why I could look at it all differently. I naturally would hear about an offense that the media might be pushing, and when I would look into it, as a rule, it was very much a narrative the media put together out of context.
I kept a close eye on what Trump was doing in his job. I was as a rule pretty satisfied.
I never jumped into the media rhetoric or tried to stay clear of it.
I would be interested in the racist statement he said coming down the escolator in Trump tower.While looking for the exact quote, I found another Trump lie
Coming down the golden escalator Trump said "“Wow. Woah. That is some group of people. Thousands!” Trump said, looking out towards a bank of TV cameras." - In reality, there were a few dozen.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … s-memories
Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. (BTW, Mexico didn't send a single person to the US,, just to set the record straight)
That is racist! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … gn-launch-
speech-two-years-later-annotated/
And yes, you said it - the right-wing propaganda outlets (I just can't cell them news, because they are not) do not report Trump's flaws - ever.
The mainstream media simply reported what they saw and heard with little embellishment in their news and analysis articles.
Different Point - Just saw come across the screen that the Jan 6 committee, after those revealing texts from Meadows, they want to call those Fox talking heads who pleaded with Meadows to get Trump to call of his dogs.
Yes, the demonization continues. It will continue until Donald Trump is completely, 100% removed from the political stage - Neither Democrats nor some Republicans will stop their campaign until that removal is accomplished, for Trump is too great a threat to the political system as we have it today. A threat not only to Democrats but to Republicans as well, for the dirty tricks and power plays of both cross party lines and are used by both sides.
Or dead... Trump was and is unique, and is such a threat to both sides. None wanted American's to have a true peek into what actually goes no (or better yet what does not go on ) in Washington. He certainly has opened many's eyes to what problems we have in Government. It would well seem many are not willing to buy into pretty speeches with a ton of second-rate acting put in for good measure. They are all standing there in their underwear at this point, with all the flaws evident.
And that is because Trump is a clear and present danger to American democracy.
I don't know what the future holds, but what would you do if Trump runs in 2024, and wins? It is obvious you dislike him, but he could be back. Would you feel comfortable voting once again for Biden? He is tallying up many lies himself, and you clearly have shared you do not like that poor quality in a president.
I'll keep tilting at that windmill.
I guess I do dislike him because he is a bad, evil man who has done horrible things to America. I don't hate him, however, because he is mentally ill (or that is the considered opinion of dozens and dozens of mental health experts).
Yes, even though I really disliked his decision on Afghanistan, I would be very happy to vote for Biden again. And, I think he will win by a larger margin.
And yes, I don't like it when Biden doesn't fact check many of the things he is found wrong on. However, do admit it when he is wrong. But, unlike Trump, generally once he is told he is wrong he stops it; unfortunately though, not always. That said, if I have to chose between someone who lies a little over someone who lies a WHOLE lot.
Time to go to bed but I will leave you with this - Many are charged Obstruction of an Official Proceeding which carries a maximum of 20 years. Insurrection is 10 years.
Those were interesting cases. I find a difference due to the actual interpretation of words. the full context of what led up to the statement in question, and what was said after. The demeanor of the [person saying the words should also be important. Many people use the word "fight" --- context matters. As in the Brandenburg case, this was a man that had a history with the KKK. Which was at that time were known to be committing crimes of violence against black citizens. and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that "it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken." The word itself calls for violence, there can be no mistaking the word to have any other context.
The word fight is used in our society in many ways. Trump used the word many times in his Jan 6 speech. However, the context was clear each time he used it he prepared the words before and after he used the word. His demeanor as he said the word went along with the context in which he used it. If he would have used a word like revengeance, I would say he was calling for violence as an option at the Capitol on that day...
In regard to the Claiborne County case, Mr.Evers used very clear language, and his demeanor was angery, and the context could not be mistaken for anything else but a violent threat. "In 1966, a boycott of white merchants in Claiborne County, Miss., was launched at a meeting of a local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) attended by several hundred black persons. The purpose of the boycott was to secure compliance by both civic and business leaders with a lengthy list of demands for equality and racial justice. The boycott was largely supported by speeches encouraging nonparticipants to join the common cause and by nonviolent picketing, but some acts and threats of violence did occur. Charles Evers, the field secretary of the NAACP in Mississippi and a principal organizer of the boycott, was quoted as saying, Source quote -- https://mscivilrightsproject.org/claibo … y-boycott/
“if we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck.”
In my opinion, the Brandenburg test could certainly be applied, but not stand in regard to Trump's actions.
I would not be surprised if at some point we see this all before the Supreme Court, and the Brandenburg used and shot down due to Trump's word's will be put into context.
It's a wait-and-see. I certainly don't put it past the Democrats to work very hard to bring charges against Trump for Jan 6th, as they did with the two impeachments. It seems very vindictive in my view, and I think that's one of that party's biggest problems.
I have frequently shared my view on Trump's Jan 6th speech, I admitted I turned it off halfway through and had to go back and listen to it in full after the riot. I listen carefully, I did not in any respect think he called for violence. His demeanor was very loud and clear when he called to march peacefully to the Capitol. There was at no time context that would lead me to think he was calling for a riot.
I do think many yahoos showed up on that day ready to riot. I can't assume their reasons other than being very bad losers. I think it very disturbing that our society has come to the point of reading in whatever they want to into one's words. Very much ready to misconstrue if it serves their purpose. I am blunt on this subject due to making every attempt to keep my common sense while I feel many have lost it.
Thus far I have seen no clear evidence that Trump was promoting an insurrection. I think reading the transcript gives very good context to what Trump said in the speech. I think then one should watch the clip, and have a look at his demeanor giving the speech, and following the progression of the speech. I put two and two together and came up with my conclusion.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?507744-1/ … tification
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/08/politics … index.htmlDeleted
I feel the First Amendment gives less but some protection when it comes to speech that incites imminent lawless action. I think it would be hard to prove from Trump's speech that he wanted to incite a riot. One would need to think this man very much unAmerican, and uncaring to those that could be hurt. That certainly is quite an assumption. Not sure I would jump on this bandwagon.
"Does the First Amendment protect fighting words?
Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. ... Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment."
This is a precedent they could use more easily. If they can prove his words were fighting words.
To your point --- "He absolutely fanned the flames of his supporters’ discontent with his consistent talk of a rigged election and a “fraud” of an election. Many also believe that Trump’s incendiary language did incite the rioters."
I voted for Trump, I was not in the least inflamed, and had moved on. So who is to say more that hoped he won did not just move on? And who can prove Trump's incendiary language provoked any or all to riot? Would that not involve a given person's perception of the speech? My point is, how would one prove any of this. It sounds plausible, and would to some, but others may hear something different.
I agree 100% it was irresponsible to hold that type of rally when the electoral votes were being counted. I found the rally altogether inappropriate. He lost, he should have moved on gracefully. If he had a problem he should have handled it quietly not in the media.Deleted
I did not personally find him to lie, I did find him at times misinformed, and some of his comments showed that. I also found the media did not provide all context when making a claim of a lie. I can agree after he lost he was not being forthcome with evidence of his claims in regard to fraud. So, certainly, I would agree his claims or the majority of his claims were
unsubstantiated.
I have no way of knowing if he believed what he said. He certain feel as I said if he did believe there was a fraud he should have handled it out of the public eye.
His character has been well questioned throughout his campaign and during his presidency. I would think many looked past his character in both elections. I never skip voting, I take what I have to work with, carefully weigh the pros and cons, and vote my conscience. In the past years, this has become a harder task, due to the poor character of candidates. So, for me, it's come down to agenda, and ideologies. Who best fits my own visions for the country.
I am very disgusted with Washington altogether. Actually ashamed at this point. I am well beyond thinking about character. What I have witnessed over these past 5 years sickens me. I want and feel we need a president that can do the job, solve problems that are piling up quickly in my view. It would be great if a great character came along with that package."I did not personally find him to lie, " - So you now admit, after first denying it, that you believe in Trump's Big Lie? And you believed his other 10,000+ documented, proven with context lies?
Over the past five years, various forum commentators have offered you clear evidence, with contest, of Trump lying, bold-facedly lying - not misunderstanding mind you, but outright lying, You are telling us that none of that truthful evidence mattered to you because you think we all got it wrong?
" I would think many looked past his character in both elections. " - [i]What that seems to tell the reader is that, assuming you liked his or her agenda or ideologies, you would have voted for ... pick you modern day or past dictator ... because you can ignore their character. In other words, you could see yourself voting for Madoro, Xi, Un, or Putin on the Left and Hitler, Assad, Erdogan, and Hussein on the Right?
That is what I am getting out of your comments.I have browsed the WAPO list. I found the list contained not lies but misconstrued words. I did not find a purposeful lie. I found some that were stat-oriented, which as we know can be quoted wrong, I found statements that when I read fully before and after content was written out of context. I read many that were clearly his opinion, and really can't be thought of as a lie. I am sure there may be some lies in that last. Could you give me just one example of what you feel was a lie this way I can see where you are coming from.?
"What that seems to tell the reader is that, assuming you liked his or her agenda or ideologies, you would have voted for ... pick you modern day or past dictator ... because you can ignore their character. In other words, you could see yourself voting for Madoro, Xi, Un, or Putin on the Left and Hitler, Assad, Erdogan, and Hussein on the Right?"
This is hyperbolic. I did not find Hillery, Biden, Trump, or in the class of a dictator in any respect. If this were the case, I would not vote,
I don't feel any of the above are of good character. I don't consider them dictators.
It may come to the point I can not in all good conscious vote. I have not come to that point as of yet, it seems to be getting close.
It would seem you can't accept that as an individual I think differently than you. I have a very matter-of-fact personality, I try not to read into anything, and stick to what I can see as the here and now.
I would guess this is why I don't agree with most liberals. I feel they read too much in and take too much for granted. But, I understand they have the right to their opinions and do not in any way fault them for individuality.Deleted
I was referring to the list at WAPO which ECO had referred. However, yes Trump is promoting something that has been proven factual not to be true. Due to the number of accusations that have not been proven to be true. It would be evident he either believes what he is saying or he is lying.
And IF he truly believes what he is saying to the truth, then he is dangerously delusional. Either way, delusional or lying Trump must be opposed strongly.
Does Trump still believe he lost the election only through fraud? Probably, but I can't say any more than anyone else can.
But do you remember the "Trump colluded with Putin" case 5 years ago? It took years of throwing the entire might of the US justice system at it to decide that he did not, and there are still millions of people that will unequivocally state that he did. On the other hand, none of Trump's "evidence", none of his eyewitness reports, were ever heard in a court of law - all were dismissed on procedural grounds or because a single judge decided they were without merit. Can, or should, you expect less of Trump than of the millions that believed the Big Lie of Collusion by Trump? Should we be discussing the mental state of Democrats that pushed an impeachment effort based on that false charge?Except it wasn't a 'Trump colluded with Putin' case. It was a Russian interference in our elections case, which actually did prove that:
1.) Trump's Campaign Chair did coordinate with Russian Intelligence
2.) Russia interfered to assist Trump's election
3.) Trump Obstructed Justice on 10 separate occasions to thwart the investigation of an attack by a hostile foreign government on our country.
And yes, courts did hear evidence as I showed you in multiple cases a few days ago and that you still continue to lie about.You and I both know that the first claims were that Trump colluded with Putin.
Russia actually did "interfere" with the election...by posting on social media. If you can call that "interference".
If Trump obstructed justice then he would be jailed. If he did it on 10 separate occasions then it is not possible that he skated by on all ten accusations - the inevitable conclusion is that this is not true.
You have not shown a single case, filed by Trump or his lawyers, that a jury heard. What you have shown is that cases by other people were heard. Why you keep making the claim that Trump's cases went to trial is beyond me.Your own perception of the investigation certainly is not the truth. And you left out a few things the Russians did in their interference like illegally hacking the DNC.
If Trump obstructed justice while president, he was unable to be prosecuted according to his own Justice Department. Therefore, your claim of an inevitable conclusion is a lie because it leaves out that factor that has protected Trump.
And all the cases I chose were filed by the Trump Campaign, none by people outside of his campaign because I knew you'd make that argument. You're just too sloppy to read closely enough to note those details and then choose to lie about what was actually posted."You and I both know that the first claims were that Trump colluded with Putin." - PROVE IT. If you don't, we all know you are wrong.
"Russia actually did "interfere" with the election...by posting on social media. If you can call that "interference". - WE don't claim interference, the various intelligence services (you know the ones Trump threw under the bus in his treasonous support of Putin's version) PROVED interference.
Whether DOJ choses to prosecute or not (and it simply amazes me they don't appear to have the balls), the truth of the evidence is supported by hundreds of former federal prosecutors of both Parties said there was sufficient evidence to indict Trump on obstruction. (And just because they retired dioesn't mean that received a lobotomies the moment they retired,)
"that a jury heard" - I see you are trying to move the goal posts once again. It won't work. You know you are wrong, just admit it.
"I have browsed the WAPO list. " - Then I guess you missed these:
- This is my favorite. In two then recent speeches and once in his Art book Trump claimed his father was NOT born in New York. In the speeches it was Germany and in the book it was New Jersey. Are you claiming Trump misconstrued or misunderstood where his father was born, lol.
- JAN 20 2021 “We also got tax cuts, the largest tax cut and reform in the history of our country, by far.” Repeated 238 times as of Jan 2021. [i]The first time he said this, one can forgive him for making a mistake. But once it became well known it was not correct, then it is classified as a bold-faced lie
- JAN 20 2021
“One of the things we're very, very proud of is the selection of almost three hundred federal judges and three great Supreme Court justices. That's a very big number. That's a record-setting number.” Repeated 84 times - Again, he could be forgiven the first few times, but when he learned that Bill Clinton holds the record, the next time he made this statement, he was lying
JAN 20 2021
“We got it so that we can sadly get rid of people that don't treat our vets properly. We had we didn't have any of those rights before when I came on.” Repeated 119 times -]i]Same story, the first time he said it, it was reported that the ability to fire bad employees came under Obama with the 2014 Choice Act. So he lied about this 118 times[/i]I do know that the tax cuts were not the largest in our history. Although if I remember correctly I checked out that statement way back when he first made it. His tax cuts were not the biggest tax cut in US history, measured as either a percentage of US GDP or in absolute terms. But, the biggest corporate tax cut in US history. He should have made that clear. So the way he put it would be a mistruth.
Perhaps he was referring to a list of selected candidates for Fed Judges. he seemed to use that number frequently accompanied by the word selected, no appointed.
It well appears he lied about it being his accomplishment to fire people that treat vets poorly.Deleted
I must change my comment. Trump did actually sign a bill in 2017 that clearly shows he was being truthful in regard to “We got it so that we can sadly get rid of people that don't treat our vets properly."
ECO statement ----" JAN 20 2021
“We got it so that we can sadly get rid of people that don't treat our vets properly. We had we didn't have any of those rights before when I came on.” Repeated 119 times -]i]Same story, the first time he said it, it was reported that the ability to fire bad employees came under Obama with the 2014 Choice Act. So he lied about this 118 times[/i]"
Actully this is a diffrent bill than Obamas .
Trump signs bill making it easier to fire bad VA employees
BY KATHRYN WATSON
JUNE 23, 2017 / 1:01 PM / CBS NEWS
"President Trump signed a bill into law Friday that will make it easier to fire bad employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs and give more protection to employees who bring misconduct to light.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Whistleblower Protection Act gives VA Secretary David Shulkin more authority to fire misbehaving or underperforming employees, shorten the appeals process for that firing, and prohibits employees from being paid while they pursue the appeals process. It also includes new protections against retaliation for workers who file complaints with the VA general counsel's office and shortens the process for hiring new employees to fill a workforce shortage at the VA.
"Our veterans have fulfilled our duty to this nation and now we must fulfill our duty to them," Mr. Trump said."
"Many veterans died waiting for a simple doctor's appointment," the president added, bringing up the VA wait-time scandal that emerged in 2014. "What happened was a national disgrace, and yet some of the employees involved in these scandals remained on the payrolls. Our dated laws kept the government from holding those who failed our veterans accountable. Today we are changing those laws."
Mr. Trump in April signed an executive order to create the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection within the VA, intended to weed out bad employees and outdated policies that keep them there. This legislation empowers that office, Mr. Trump said. The Trump administration has also launched a website that shows wait times at VA facilities."
So it is clear Trump did not lie in regard to “We got it so that we can sadly get rid of people that don't treat our vets properly" he said this in regards
to his bill --- Accountability and Whistleblower Whistleblower Protection Act.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con … -bill/1094
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sign … employees/
Are you interested in the lies or making the point about who told them? It is very clear that one could provide long lists of prior and present presidents' lies. Actually some pretty hurtful, dishonest, destructive lies. Politicians are well known for lying.
Does it serve a purpose for us to compare who lies more or the serious nature of a given lie? As you said in a previous comment It does reflect on one's character.
I think this is very true. I found little difference in Trump and Biden when it came to being honest. Both leave a long path of lies. Sort of equal one another in telling lies. I found Biden's more destructive, than Trump's. So Trump won out in this respect by a hair.I left the Veteran's Choice lie because it was a bit complex to give a concise description.
"He should have made that clear. So the way he put it would be a mistruth." - I agree for the first couple of instances he said that. But, how about the other 236 times he said it. Were those simply "mistruths" as well or knowing lies?
Either way, selected or appointed, Clinton still beat him. So why did Trump keep up repeating what is now a lie another 85 times.
So, let's get back to your assertion that you aren't aware of any Trump lies. Those examples have been out there for a very long time.I have been thinking about this, and your examples got me thinking why I did not feel trump was a liar. I think it was because the lies were as ar ule very benign. Much of the time seemed to be braggadocious. Perhaps I have become immune to the lies presidents tell.
As I said to Faye -- Are you interested in the lies or making the point about who told them? It is very clear that one could provide long lists of prior and present presidents' lies. Actually some pretty hurtful, dishonest, destructive lies. Politicians are well known for lying.
Does it serve a purpose for us to compare who lies more or the serious nature of a given lie? As you said in a previous comment It does reflect on one's character.
I think this is very true. I found little difference in Trump and Biden when it came to being honest. Both leave a long path of lies. Sort of equal one another in telling lies. I found Biden's more destructive, than Trump's. So Trump won out in this respect by a hair.
Are you keeping a list of the lies Biden has told?Deleted
The country is divided not only by party, but the parties have split due to severe ideology differences, and citizens have proclaimed their ideologies and feel they need to protect them. A president that tells lies is the very least of our problems in my view.
If it were a problem, more would be very up in arms in respect to a president lying about American's being left behind in a military withdrawal. Some society are we not? Some will look at a braggadocious pat on the back lie as showing a great character fault ... Yet when a president promises to bring all American's home before pulling out of a volatile country, it can be understood, it can be tucked away nicely in a box, not to be discussed. It truely confirms the great hypocrisy of those that defend that lie, and or just tuck it away not to be spoken of.
In my view --- The very worse barefaced lie I have heard from a president of the United States --- We will not leave until all Americans are out". And that there were a hundred or so to be gotten out... This is at the very top of my list. The most disgusting, the most hurtful, the most dishonest lie I could imagine.
And Biden said it with such vigor. "If there are American citizens left, we're going to stay to get them all out: US President Joe Biden" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbDMqMYYvII
So, I would prefer to not keep a list of mistruths on Biden, just as I did with Trump. These lists only lead to the comparison game. And for me, we thus far have a winner.Deleted
"I'm particularly concerned with the continued claims of a rigged 2020 election." - As well as you and every other patriotic American should be. Trump and the Republican's attack on our elections is the most dangerous thing to the continued existence of our democracy since the Civil War.
"Mr. Trump's success in creating his own version of a new truth about the election" - And getting millions upon millions of gullible Americans to go along with him.I can only give my view, what I felt in the last election. I moved on the next day. I in no respect felt there was fraud committed that was out of the norm.
And I agree many did and still do believe Trump's words are the truth. He is still an influence in the GOP. And the political landscape has been changed. Some no longer have faith in our system for many reasons... One many saw how the 2016 election lead to investigating a duly elected
president for many crimes he just did not commit. This is what started the great divide IMO. We have what we have... I guess one could thank the Democrats for this. All the accusations lead to nothing. However, it did make a lot of citizens realize how corrupt a party could be when they lose an election.
I feel their anger but can see the reality of the 2020 election.
Yes, we have a huge lie that is influencing the minds of many. But,
I think there are many more variables that keep many supporting Trump.
Many that don't feel the election was fraudulent feel he was a good president for many individual reasons. He has built lots of support due to what many see as his accomplishments.
Again, it is the quantity and seriousness of the lies that count. And since Trump wants to be a king, well he certainly qualifies for that title in this regard.
I must say your statement makes no sense to me --- The quantity? This indicates a bunch of braggadocious lies are more serious than a very serious lie from a president that put lives in danger. Or lies that can hurt another individual. Like Bidens cruel lie about the man he claimed drank his lunch and killed his wife and child? This man's daughter said Bidens lie hurt him until the day he died.
Biden's gotten 200 more Americans out since then and has assurances from the Taliban that no American lives will be harmed. The same assurances Trump had gotten from them as well and trusted.
Weird how you criticize one president for accepting the word of the Taliban but not the other.Yes, quantity, it goes to character. There is a marked difference between somebody like Trump who averages roughly 20 lies or deceiving language a day, large and small, as opposed to somebody like Biden, who may utter one every few days. On the large side, as best as I can tell, not one person has died due to a lie from Biden, but thousands upon thousands have because of Trump's.
Was the example you gave a lie at the TIME that Biden said it? No, it was not, it was the common perception then. Only later did it come out the guy MIGHT not have been drunk. You know that as well as I do, but you bring it up anyway. Why?Believe what you please. Polls indicate you are in the minority in your support for this man
.
More Voters Want Trump To Run In 2024 Than Biden, Poll Suggests
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre … -suggests/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/preside … d=81701113
The polls certainly are a good sign that people are done with Joe. The left media is no longer carrying his water, they are all but done with Biden. They are jumping on the truth and reporting it in regard to Biden's poor ability to govern. He is toast.Deleted
I think the Trump era will be viewed in the same manner as the Civil War is today - a terrible blot on American history. Hopefully, history will report that like with the Civil War, America ALMOST lost its democracy and not that Trump was successful in destroying it.
I am with the majority--- I would hope people are more intelligent to back others at this point.
If the election was a do-over today I am with the majority in the poll I offered. Especially after these past 11 months, I don't think I have ever witnessed such a poor job performance, and I am opposed to the agenda he is pushing -- I would vote for Trump. Again it would require pros and cons... I prefer a president that can govern. Biden has so many problems he is completely ignoring. Thank God the polls show the people seem to be as dissatisfied as I am.
Hopefully, we have two brand new candidates in 2024. In my view, Biden has the perfect storm going at this point, and all that will be left is rubble by 2023.
IMO, Biden has provided nothing but chaos, and things are getting worse daily.
I am pleased you shared your view and shared it in a very non-confrontational way. The points you provided were well taken." I don't think I have ever witnessed such a poor job performance," - Yes you did, you just refuse to recognize it. Trump was far worse that you imagine Biden is - who is doing a very credible job on most things.
"Polls indicate you are in the minority in your support for this man" - For the moment. Chances a great that Biden will get past 50% while you will always be in the minority with Trump.
"It seems as if we are party over country these days." - I am not sure I entirely agree - yet
In my lifetime, there once was a time when each Party had a right, middle, and left component. The two ends of each group were roughly the same size within each Party. The middle was the largest.
It is my observation that the middle and left of the Republican Party and the middle and non-Southern portions of the Democratic Party that were largely Country over Party. (the southern contingent - with some notable exceptions - became conservative Republicans in the 90s). The extremes of each Party were the Party over Country crowd.
Fast forward to today. The middle and left part of the Republican Party has all but disappeared and the remainder has bifurcated into the Trumpers and true patriots (meaning Cheney and Kizenger). The Trumpers (they aren't really conservatives anymore) are your Party of Country group.
The right-side of the Democratic Party is more or less non-existent, having moved to the right side of the Republican Party, as I mentioned. The middle of the Democrats are still dominant, but the extreme left has grown in power. The extreme left, in my view, are also Party over Country while the middle still holds Country over Party.
That is my story and I am sticking to it.
Keeping a list? No. But the Washington Post and others are. The difference between Trump and EVERYBODY else is the quantity and effortlessness of his lying - it is a distinguishing characteristic. That is not true with any other president.
All people lie, even you and me and presidents. But some are white lies to protect the feelings of others. Some are misremembering things which have truth behind them (I am thinking of Biden being a bus driver once, but that has morphed into a repeated lie that he drove a tractor trailer once). Still others are self-aggrandizement in nature for which many of Trump's fall into. Yet others are to deceive, which is another favorite category for Trump. It is the latter that can be harmful - the best example of that is Trump's lying about the dangers of the pandemic which resulted in thousands of needless deaths. (For that particular series of lies, I don't think there is an analog in presidential history.)
"Does it serve a purpose for us to compare who lies more or the serious nature of a given lie? " - Yes, it absolutely does.
Does Biden have 30,000+ lies, deceptions, misleading statements, etc to his credit? I don't think so.
"I feel the First Amendment gives less but some protection when it comes to speech that incites imminent lawless action." - In fact, the First Amendment offers NO protection in those circumstances - at least according to several Supreme Court and other court decisions. The test is now - 1) did the speech egg people on to do something bad and 2) did the people listening to the speech go and do something illegal. In Jan 6ths case, the answer to both of those questions is yes.
You are correct, Sharlee, context and demeanor do matter. Exhibit # 1 of several hundred, is the video and audio of how the crowd reacted to Trump's "fight" speech. It is clear to any observer the crowd was getting more and more inflamed the longer he talked.
Claiborne: I agree with the Co
