Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
Going to be interesting to see if the Supreme Court keeps him on the ballot and then to see if Smith can get a conviction. The Supreme Court will need to come at this sideways to keep him on the ballot, using procedure since one court concluded as fact that Trump engaged in insurrection and was validated by another court. It will be doubtful that they will try to overturn that finding. That leave procedure, or standing, or some other technicality.
Ken anchoring himself to Giuliani says about all we need to know about the validity of his arguments. Giuliani has already been shown in a Georgia case to have openly lied about voter fraud pertaining to two election workers and his claims in Pennsylvania were thoroughly debunked. He's lost his law license in multiple jurisdictions with one court stating the following:
The New York state appellate court said there was "uncontroverted evidence" that Giuliani "communicated demonstrably false and misleading statement to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer" for Trump and his campaign "in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020."
Even in actual court cases, when he could have been prosecuted for perjury, Giuliani never argued for fraud. That should be telling to people from MAGA, but they ignore that point. Instead quoting some guy with photos or a debunked partisan movie that relied on conspiracy and not actual evidence.
Specifically, Ken mentions Pennsylvania. Well, when the Trump Campaign presented their 'evidence,' this is what the court stated:
"Charges of unfairness are serious," wrote Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed by Trump. "But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." Later in the ruling, Bibas continued: "The campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters."
And yet Ken inflates the total to some 500,000 suspect ballots because he heard Giuliani mention it, instead of looking at the facts from an actual court case where truth matters and is held to account.
And this is the problem with the MAGA crowd. They are being led by their media sources while ignoring the actual places where truth is held to account. That recent post shows it. Clearly, the sourcing provided was social media, such as a Youtube link, or Facebook where someone saw someone with a pair of photos. Meanwhile, we over here on the left are posting the results of court cases where evidence was provided with the accountability to the truth.
It's why MAGA continues to be a danger. The distrust they have in their government and now in elections is based on conspiracies, exaggerations, and self-fulfilling prophecies circulated throughout a dishonest media.And what others are privy to is that Fox News is down 20% of viewership in 2023 because they now fact-check many of their guests. Meanwhile, the further right networks such as Newsmax which continues to push those conspiracies that Fox News had to pay over $800 million for pushing, have risen by 22% in viewership - alluding to the fact that the conservative base has skewed much farther to the right. On the flip side, MSNBC has risen 2% in viewership this year while CNN is down 20% like Fox News. More importantly, MSNBC and CNN combined had nearly equal viewership in the coveted 25-54 age bracket in November 2023 with the three conservative networks (Fox News, Newsmax, NewsNation).
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-ar … 23/542376/
And continuing to use ratings for trust, when there are actual polls that track trust in the networks is just the usual confirmation bias from the right to justify whatever they can however they can.And when you add ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and NYT they beat the pants off of Fox and company.
Trump's defense to his legal troubles is to lie to the jury, judges, and America (what's new?).
1. Trump will claim it was foreigners and not himself who sent the MAGA cult to the Capitol to stop the certifications of Biden as the new president. That it was foreigners, and not Trump, who spread all that disinformation that riled up Trump's army. He is blaming Russia, Russia, Russia, lol.
2. He wants to try to expand the definition of the special prosecutor to include many other federal agencies with the goal of delay, delay, delaying the trial by asking for additional documents.
3. He will try to argue that potential witnesses (like Bill Barr and VP Pence) have a political bias against him and thereby reduce their credibility. He also wants to (here we go again) argue widespread voter fraud prevented him from winning the 2020 election.
3.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/politics … index.htmlThe link moves me to ask a question. For all these Islands, Mountains, and Universe of cases and appeals lingering on and on, can the 'real' Donald Trump made it? Given the fact that the March trial isn't far off, I for addional appeal. Whacking Trump is getting famous?
You do realize, don't your, that it is Trump doing the "lingering" in his campaign to push being held accountable for his crimes until after the election when he can pardon himself should he, God forbid, win.
Eso, I do take note of the lingering issue. But how come Trump can absolve himself of his many purported public crimes? Wondering.
Which when interpreted means that Cred does not challenge the misinformation often posted like eso, myself and even Readmikenow have done in recent weeks. That Cred will tolerate the conspiracies and links to social media posts much more than the rest of us.
ReadMikeNow has issues with Ken? Interesting.
As I sure that you are well aware, this matter of how the Ukraine crisis as part of American foreign policy is conducted has them both at loggerheads.
That's right, he lives in Germany or Poland if I remember correctly.
I imagine he is pretty mad at the Republicans right now for helping Putin win his invasion.The issue is two-fold.
The history wrapped into Ukraine, Russia, Crimea.
America's involvement and what it meant would happen to Ukraine.
I opposed it, a peaceful resolution, the Minsk Agreement, accepting Crimea's secession all would have saved lives... hundreds of thousands of lives, and counting.
It would have saved America hundreds of billions of dollars spent on this war as well.
And this is only where we are at now, nothing says this cannot escalate into something far worse for the whole world.
In this Mike and I are, and will forever be, opposed. I recognize our American "empire" for what it is, and I do not support the continued destruction it is reigning down on one nation after another.
Mike sees this from the Ukraine perspective, it is far more personal for him. It has affected him far more deeply than myself.
Two people can have very different perspectives on the matter for very different reasons, it does not require one to be right or one to be wrong.
Whose perspective is right?
A Ukrainian is not going to have the same perspective as an American who is not going to see it the same way as a German who is not going to see it the same way as a Russian.
America has a 30 year track record going now, of destroying one nation after another, and then just leaving it behind when it no longer suits their interests... I saw that this is where Ukraine was heading, no different than Iraq or Syria, and I said so.
Only worse, this time we decided to play this game against a nation that can destroy us.Ukraine surrendering to Russia would have saved lives as well. Who needs freedom, it is an antiquated concept except to those of us on the left.
By antagonizing Russia over Crimea, by not initiating/complying with the agreed to Minsk Agreement, Ukraine chose war... not peace.
They had the freedom to do so, and they are paying the price for that decision.
What they have now in comparison to what they had, and what they could have had if they continued to work toward a peaceful co-existence with Russia...
Millions have suffered, hundreds of thousands have died... for an outcome that benefited only the rich corporations and neocons who love war, the people of Ukraine have suffered and will continue to suffer horribly for the arrogance and stupidity of those who pursued this course.
It's called open-mindedness, as well as politeness. Cred has both in an abundance.
Or Cred has a tolerance for those wishing to live in their own alternate reality of conspiracy and half-truths.
You have to tolerate them Valeant, what other choice have you? They have the right to think and believe as they wish, regardless as to how ridiculous.
Getting banned every other month does not help us to use the only tool that we have, our voices. My adversaries revel in that over anything else.Until that language and disinformation becomes dangerous, I agree with you. Several commentors have crossed that line on occasion.
For example, those who railed against vaccinations are partly responsible for people dying of Covid. How? By amplifying a deadly message. When they do that, they must take ownership of the consequences.
The same would be true regarding spreading conspiracy theories about the election or Jan 6th. While people's lives may not be at stake (unless it ends in another insurrection), our democracy and way of life clearly are.
That, as a patriotic American who has served our country for most of my life, is something I cannot tolerate."That, as a patriotic American who has served our country for most of my life, is something I cannot tolerate."
Well, bless your heart.
GA*
*That was the old 'devil GA'. I apologize. I didn't mean it. It was intended jokingly. I'm sure you're a 'stand-up' guy, but after wading through the tone-setting 'us and them' and 'intelligence' categorizations, that open door tripped my brain into a time loop and I was helpless as 'old GA' just took over the keyboard.
ROFLMAO
We, you and I and like minded ones, need to continue with our message to bring attention to the offenses that you mentioned in the hope that such will not be tolerated by most Americans, as well, in the future. Then the tools can made available to effectively resist and hopefully change course.
The only weapons are how I vote and which candidate(s) I actively advocate for, much as I did for Elizabeth Warren in 2020.
Thanks, Sharlee, for affirming that which you have always known, it is never "personal".
On the contrary, I challenge all misinformation when such is identified by me as such.
I do not have a Facebook account as I quit them as being too intrusive and nosy a few years ago. I may not have my thumb on social media, but I read "the papers" and I am well versed on what going on from a broader perspective. I have always seen the changes and where they are leading.
I don't have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the danger posed by today's "Rightwing" for what it is.
Don't underestimate me, I am the Right's greatest nemesis, attacking from all sides as I know that an ascension by Trump or MAGA poses the greatest risk to me and mine, as Black folks have always been the "canary in the coal mine" in cases when the country's commitment to democracy beyond mere words are to be tested. In face of that reality, who has the most "skin" in the game? The Right as it is current found in America must be eradicated to the greatest extent consistent within the democratic process . A kind or gracious word to an adversary will not change any of that.
I don't challenge that of which I am not familiar....
Two more states are trying to remove Trump from their ballots, Massachusetts and Illinois. The Illinois petition states correctly that:
Trump “has never expressed regret that his supporters violently attacked the U.S. Capitol” and threatened lawmakers inside, and that “Trump has not apologized to anyone, either on his own behalf or on behalf of his supporters, for the January 6 attack.”
Previously, the challengers have been Republicans, It is unknown what the party affiliation of these petitioners are.
Many people, on the left or the right, say "let the voters decide". Well, I argue that that is NOT what the Constitution says.
I have mentioned this before and drew no rebuttal. What if Trump were 30 years old and was put forward by the Republican Party as one of its primary candidates?? And what if somebody petitioned the Illinois Board of Elections to keep Trump off the ballot because he was too young. Would the same people arguing to "let the people vote" still be demanding that?
How about those Trump supporters on this forum. Would you argue that 30 year old Trump should be allowed on the ballot?
Trump “has never expressed regret that his supporters violently attacked the U.S. Capitol” and threatened lawmakers inside, and that “Trump has not apologized to anyone, either on his own behalf or on behalf of his supporters, for the January 6 attack.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/04/politics … index.html
(I checked this time, it is the correct link)"Trump “has never expressed regret that his supporters violently attacked the U.S. Capitol” and threatened lawmakers inside, and that “Trump has not apologized to anyone, either on his own behalf or on behalf of his supporters, for the January 6 attack.”
Is it genuinely reasonable for someone to offer an apology for an incident they believe they played no role in? Is it fitting to apologize for the actions of another? From my perspective, the quoted statement (I didn't verify the source) appears illogical. It seems to reflect a nonsensical viewpoint. The usual order seems reversed, and what was once considered normal is no longer the norm. This wave of hysteria is quite contagious.
Myself -- I don't want to catch it... I feel that the Supreme Court will rule on the Colorado case, and I will respect their ruling. As I have in the past.I must agree with you, "expressing regret", etc is not particularly relevant. I have to believe they have something more substantive like they did in Colorado and Maine.
Does he really "believe" that or is that just another one of Trump's lies and he "knows" he is responsible because that was part of his plan to illegally hold on to power? Objective evidence contradicts his "belief".
But, if he really "believes" he did nothing wrong, then you are backing a man who is clearly delusional. Personally, I don't think he is, I think he knew/knows exactly what he is doing. I don't think delusion is one of the traits involved in his mental illness that makes him so dangerous.Do you think the Supreme Court will uphold Colorado's decision? I'm doubtful at this juncture. From my perspective, Trump did indeed raise concerns about the election results and took measures to persuade Pence to halt the proceedings on January 6th. However, I don't believe he actively instigated the violence that occurred on that day.
I will cut to the chase -- Ultimately, the Republican party will determine its candidate at the Convention, taking into consideration polls, caucuses, and the outcome of primaries in red states. The controversy surrounding the removal of his name from the ballots in Blue states, which he likely wouldn't have won anyway, may not carry significant weight. The focus will likely be on the primary results in the red states. Right now it appears Trump will be the candidate in the 2024 presidential election. Unless Smith has very good evidence to convict him of some form of crime. I would like to see Smith's case fast-tracked. We the people need to see what his investigation has produced.Regarding the Republican Convention and the Nominee choice, this is true.
This is an issue bigger than that however, this determines if a handful of people can determine who can be on a ballot based on their perceptions of whether a law, or the Constitution, was violated or not, even if we are talking about a current front runner and former President.
We already have an election system that is broken in a handful of states now, that allow mail in ballots that have no means of validating their authenticity, they are sent out by the millions to people and there is no way of knowing who filled them out.
This is on top of states that allow computers to calculate/tally the votes without a paper trail.
This will be just one more nail in a coffin that appears sealed pretty tight to me already."This is an issue bigger than that however, this determines if a handful of people can determine who can be on a ballot based on their perceptions of whether a law, or the Constitution, was violated or not, even if we are talking about a current front runner and former President."
I Fully realized that fact the day the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on removing Trump from the ballot. My sentiment is just a realistic thought for what we may be left with if the United States Supreme Court chooses not to hear the case or rules to let the Colorado SC ruling stand.
I am passed all the hand-wringing at this point. Can you suggest any recourse "We The People" have at this juncture? To put my feelings in slang --- "We gots what we gots"
I have been trying to share my feelings about what I feel may be our one last hope --- First, we have the choice between two brand spanking new candidates on the ballot, and secondly, the majority of Americans wake up and vote Republican in 2024. Otherwise, I feel the country will further deteriorate.
I truely can see if the Colorado case is not heard or goes south we will see pandemonium with red states removing Biden from the ballot due to the many allegations he has hurled at him about Pay for Play. So, yes I am fully aware of what I feel could happen if the Supreme Court won't hear the case, and the ruling stands or they take the case and let the
ruling stand.
I am very aware of the deterioration of America, and pretty much agree with your predictions. I mean, your theories are very well-researched and laid out.
I have held out hope, and yes, it is dwindling daily. I feel if the Supreme Court takes the case they will rule in Trump's favor using the Constitution as written. I am hopeful it will be unanimous. Yes, I am dreaming...
I do feel this time around the Republican Party at the Convention will nominate Trump as of now. It will not matter that in a few states, he has been removed from the ballot. If the states are allowed to dictate who can be on the ballot this will lead to dictatorship plain and simple. I think we can both agree that is the true goal of this crazy corrupt party.Yes, vote Republicans. Vote Republican to strip more freedoms from people. Vote to ostracize and make illegal whose lifestyles the religious right feels repugnant. Vote Republican to make abortion illegal everywhere.
This is not guessing what they will do, it is what they have done already.I can't understand why you feel as you do. However, you certainly have very strong feelings, and have the right to share them.
How can you not understand how I feel.
Do you disagree that Republicans were responsible for the fall of Roe v Wade?
Do you disagree that Republicans have taken away woman's rights in many states?
Do you disagree the Republican jurists (and Secretary of State) substituted their judgement for those of doctors caring for a woman carrying a soon to be dead baby that was threatening her life or ability to have future children.
Do you disagree that it is the Republicans working to delegitimize and in some cases make illegal the LGBTQ+ community?
Those are all true things and will become so much worse if Republicans ever gain power again.
Electing Trump will lead to dictatorship.
No American president elected has ever been a dictator. But how can Trump, under a democratic constitution?
If elected, he will be our first dictator
Because he will complete his mission to subvert our Constitution, you know, the one he started in 2016.
The SCOTUS must hear the case. I would prefer if the court could in fact do more than just permit the states to make the decision. Partisan lines are already being drawn. We need to clearly get this matter out of political realm and into the legal one. Can we get a calling beyond politics as to the appropriateness of the charges against Trump in certain states from an arbiter that is supposed to be impartial and beyond reproach?
What would be a ruling in Trumps favor? That states cannot disqualify a candidate, as it has to be determined by Congress or some higher authority? Like many have said, that would be contrary to what is prescribed in the constitution regarding states rights, is the SC willing to cross that line?
I have concern about the system as we may all well not accept a national winner if candidates from either side are disqualified for other than explicit violation of law.Let's suppose Trump did win the contest. CAN he still be sworn in? CAN someone bring suit on November 7th asking that he be barred from taking office because he is an insurrectionist? Would the suit have to wait until Jan 7th, the day after certification?
In another post, I said waiting until the election is over is too late; that may be wrong. As we see with the current calendrer for the Colorado case, the SC can move swiftly when they must. So it depends on when the suit is filed, I suppose.The Supreme Court has taken the case and will hear it on Feb 8th. All these assumptions will be answered in their ruling. It is obvious if the SC finds Trump committed an insurrection the ruling of the Colorado SC will stand, he will not be on their ballot. This presidency will enable any state to remove him from the ballot. They ultimately could rule him ineligible to run for office.
Gosh, I trust the Supreme Court to be able to decipher the Constitution. I trust they will make a fair decision. I am willing to step back and accept their decision. Thus far this SC has performed very well and is earning a reputation for being fair, and non-biased.
Now, I must say many Republicans may not accept the ruling if the SC upholds the Colorado ruling to keep Trump off the ballot. I don't see any form of violence occurring, due to most Conservatives don't go that route.
I think one way or the other The GOP will choose Trump as the candidate at the Convention, which they have the power to do. I am trying to stand back and view this mess realistically.
I suppose your fears are warranted regarding some will not accept a national winner if candidates from either side are disqualified for other than explicit violation of the law.
I think we need to start drawing back swords and start working toward some form of returning to some of our past norms. Norms that we all respected at one time.Fair and unbiased? I think not, at least for social issues like gun control and abortion.
The norms that were in place BT, before Trump destroyed them.
Everybody keep in mind that the Constitution is the ultimate law in America. And, it says nothing about the need to be convicted in a criminal (or civil) trial to be considered an insurrectionist.
I think you are oversimplifying the Constitution, and how the Supreme Court will be considering the full Constitution, where it might apply to Trump's rights. The can of worms has been opened, the SC will look at any worms... So I think we are far past a couple of lines in the 14th Amendment.
I don't think any of us know what Trump's lawyers will present. I think they will list many problems with Trump's many rights being violated, 1st, 5th, to start with.
I guess you disagree that it is the Constitution that decides who can be on a ballot or not.
Would you put Trump on the ballot if he were 30 years old?
I feel I need to ask. When Trump tweeted out to his supporters at 2:24pm, a full hour after the violence had begun, that Pence was not going to stop the certification, how do you explain that?
What's to explain? Was it a lie; was Pence going to stop the certification? Or was it a simple truth that needs no explaining?
Not exactly a simple truth since it happened an hour after the attack on the Capitol began and would be read by those doing the attack, about someone inside the Capitol no longer on their side. As always, you leave out some very key points (or when it's Democrats exaggerate the points) to downplay what actually happened when it's your side that broke the laws.
How many people have been convicted for January 6th?
Sentencings: Approximately 723 federal defendants have had their cases adjudicated and received sentences for their criminal activity on Jan. 6. Approximately 454 have been sentenced to periods of incarceration.Dec 6, 2023
None were charged with insurrection. Yet the word insurrection is continually touted by many ... So if we witnessed an insurrection why was no one charged with committing an insurrection?
"Criminal charges:
Approximately 350 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 110 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.
Approximately 140 police officers were assaulted Jan. 6 at the Capitol, including about 80 from the U.S. Capitol Police and about 60 from the Metropolitan Police Department.
Approximately 11 individuals have been arrested on a series of charges that relate to assaulting a member of the media, or destroying their equipment, on Jan. 6.
Approximately 935 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds. Of those, 103 defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.
Approximately 61 defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, and approximately 49 defendants have been charged with theft of government property.
More than 310 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.
Approximately 55 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three. "
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/30-mont … ted%20Jan.
It would appear that no one was charged with committing an insurrection. It appears law enforcement did not consider the protest and riot on Jan 6 an insurrection at all... This leaves me to think Trump certainly did not plan or partake in any form of insurrection. Plus the fact remains, that Jack Smith has not charged Trump with insurrection. Not sure that the Colorado Judges should have claimed Trump committed insurrection. I mean Smith certainly did not feel the same. Odd.
"Washington — Former President Donald Trump has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges stemming from his efforts to remain in power after he lost the 2020 presidential election, adding to the former president's ongoing legal troubles as he mounts a third bid for the White House.
According to the indictment handed up Tuesday by a federal grand jury, Trump faces four charges: conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights."
Yet we have two Judges who give the opinion that Trump did commit an insurrection. Should Smith not have come to that conclusion also? Should the many who were arrested not have been charged with insurrection? It well appears that many Federal prosecutors dropped the ball, or just did not see Jan 6th as an insurrection. Could so many be wrong? Or could it just be a fact there was no insurrection at all? Maybe the media just liked the word, and said it repeatedly, until it stuck with those who dislike Trump.Are you still stuck that the numerous convictions for seditious conspiracy do not equate to insurrection? Or that attacking Congress at the very moment that an election is being certified, in an attempt to 'stop the steal' qualifies as a violent attack on government? Unbelievable. And I think you putting words into the mouths of the law enforcement is reprehensible considering those convictions.
And someone running in to tell Trump how his tweet was perceived does not absolve him from having sent another one after it. His account was suspended because of those incitements shortly thereafter.
A choice by Jack Smith to charge the obvious crimes of conspiracy to defraud and obstruction of a process of Congress, let alone infringement of rights for trying to deny people's legal votes, does not absolve Trump of having engaged in insurrection or given aid or comfort. In fact, that Trump was charged with trying to obstruct a proceeding of Congress actually backs up the case, because if he wasn't involved that day, that charge would not have been brought, now would it?And then there are these Republican lies about Jan 6.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/politics … index.html
First read:
Insurrection (general) - "a violent uprising against an authority or government."
Insurrection (legal) - ": the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government
;also
: the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years "U.S. Code"]"
Next Read;
More than 310 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.
Approximately 55 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three. "
Are you still going to tell me with a straight face those people weren't engaged in insurrection?
It is not "Commit" an insurrection, it is "engaged" in insurrection (or aided or abetted other insurrectionists)
And it isn't just two judges. It is five judges in Colorado, multiple other judges in various other jurisdictions who were trying other cases and the people in the hearing held in Maine.
"Poll: Majority of voters would support disqualifying Trump under 14th Amendment" - meaning a majority of Americans think Trump engaged in insurrection. - https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/2 … t-00118980
Jan 2022 - "Americans Still Blame Trump For The Insurrection — And Think Democracy Is Under Threat, Polls Find" - https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … 820c517989
"
Most Americans, but few Republicans, think Jan. 6 threatened democracy
Most Americans, 55 percent, believe the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 was “an attack on democracy that should never be forgotten,” with majorities of Democrats and independents holding this view. But most Republicans and Trump voters reject this view." - https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va … ost-trump/
How many judges and other non-MAGA types say that Trump DID NOT engage in insurrection. I can't think of one."Are you still going to tell me with a straight face those people weren't engaged in insurrection?"
I was simply stating the fact --- Every case was and is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia zero were charged with insurrection. Are you insinuating these folks did not do their due diligence? I trust they have done their job in prosecuting anyone who broke the law on Jan 6th and charged them appropriately.
I am very pleased this evening to hear the Supreme Court will hear Trump's complaint regarding the Colorado ruling.
I think that the fact that no one participated in the Jan 6th protest that turned violent was charged with any form of insurrection. Yet this insurrection accusation became a widely used accusation that not only was Trump responsible for an insurrection, but an actual insurrection took place that day. This kind of accusation makes little to no sense when one just looks at the simple facts.
And yet the text of the Constitution does not call for a conviction. The conservative judges on the court are known textualists/originalists, so I hope they stay true to their convictions otherwise they are going to have a lot to answer to
While that is debatable, I think the charges stem from the false electors who illegally certified themselves as representing support for Trump contrary to the votes of the people of the state. That is a deliberate attempt at subversion of the prescribed process and one that I would considered as “insurrection”. All evidence points to the fact that Trump was behind the scheme and that is something that the January 6th protesters did not do…
No, it wasn't a lie, nobody said it was. What it was was further incitement to riot.
At 2:38, 14 minutes later, Trump tweeted ----
Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
Do you feel either tweet indicates Trump is requesting violence or calling for an insurrection? In my view, I think the context is very clear, and his words are very clear.
If you were a juror would you feel those tweets were calling for an insurrection or violence?
As I said Smith has had plenty of time and is ready to present his case against Trump. We will all be privy to what evidence he presents.Do you realize how much browbeating and berating it took to FORCE Trump to do that?
I have no idea what took place behind closed doors. I was just pointing out Trump did tweet -- Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
This can be factually presented in a court of law as evidence. As can first-hand witnesses with first-hand accounts of conversations with the president. I am not interested in secondhand accounts.
This is why we need to wait for the Smith trial. A court of law is very much different from a committee, such as the Jan 6th committee.But I do have an idea (more actually) of what happened behind those doors via the testimony and depositions of those who were there (all Republican) and presented at the bi-partisan Jan 6 committee hearings.
I, too, am anxious to get on with the Smith trial that would make clear that his troubles come from a violation of the law well beyond the give and take of opposing political points of view.
That trial would clear up a great deal and that is why Trump will attempt to delay with all of his might such an outcome.
And just a point of fact, it was Scavino that posted the message at 2:38pm.
'More than a half-hour after Trump was first pressed to take some sort of action, Trump finally let Scavino post a message on Trump's Twitter account telling supporters to support law enforcement and "stay peaceful." It was 2:38 p.m.'
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/special-couns … 00050.htmlI felt Trump should have spoken up with great speed. This did disturb me. I questioned his character in this incident. I can not see any reason to excuse that behavior. I wish I knew more about what was going on during those hours. I hope that more clarity will be provided in the Smith trial.
And yet, you are going to excuse that behavior by giving the man your vote. Sending out inciting tweets, and sitting by as his supporters attack Congress is more reprehensible than anything Biden will ever do. The details will likely come out in Smith's trial, but I doubt it will change your mind about casting your vote. You've been clear, and repetitive, that Trump's policies overrule any distaste you have for the man's conduct.
I have thoroughly weighed the pros and cons in deciding my vote for the 2024 election. My criteria for choosing a president remain unchanged. Assessing the incumbent makes the decision easier, given my firsthand observation of their job performance. I scrutinize whether promises were kept or not, and new ones made, if their agenda aligns with my own ideologies. I reflect on their honesty and consider the state of my concerns, from foreign affairs to the economy, escalating border issues, and more.
During Trump's presidency, I felt confident. I witnessed commitment to promises, experienced relative peace, economic prosperity, and observed efforts to address border challenges. I appreciate a strong presidential demeanor, and Trump's openness resonated with me. While I may not have agreed with everything he said, I valued his direct approach.
Considering Trump for the White House again, I anticipate challenges, but his resilience amid adversity is commendable. Addressing legal issues, I perceive a draw between candidates. Moreover, I believe Trump is cognitively sound, a contrast to my concerns about Biden's mental acuity, which, in my view, is deteriorating.
In conclusion, I will vote Republican, maintaining confidence that Trump could effectively address the pressing issues that require attention.We differ greatly in our views of the two men and the facts about their two presidencies, but you've got a right to your outlook and your vote. I accept that.
As I respect your views, and yes, we butt heads, but I enjoy the fact we both hang in there.
Trump could effectively address the pressing issues that require attention.
Does gun violence against our children in schools need attention?
He recently expressed his thoughts in Iowa after an 11 year old was killed at school ...that while it was tragic we just need to move on...
Trump tells Iowans to ‘get over’ recent school shooting: ‘We have to move forward’. Forward into what? What exactly is the plan? Just to ignore this kind of thing? As long as you get the glorious maga agenda?
What is the agenda for addressing this? How many more children will not finish this school year? And who really cares? Please elaborate
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 … e-forward/
We are in sync with wanting a quick resolution to Smiths indictments. It is Trump who wants to stop it. I wonder why?
Do you realize that Trump thinks he won California if it weren't for the fraud?
And you think Biden has mental problems, lol. He is as stable as they come compared to Trump.“The controversy surrounding the removal of his name from the ballots in Blue states, which he likely wouldn't have won anyway, may not carry significant weight”
While Trump may not win in clearly blue oriented states, the loss of all popular vote from these areas certainly will certainly not helpThus far I see no damage. I did not see him winning in Colorado or Maine, or the states that now threaten to follow Colorado. Naturally, it could hurt with popular vote. However, it appears his polls are steady, and growing, the Dems may have shot themselves in the foot. It seems both parties could have taken an easier more sensible route --- two brand new candidates. Oh well.
I see at this point my wish will not come true... As I see it, we need to wait for the Supreme Court to handle this mess.
I also don't feel the Rep will run anyone else but Trump --- even if it means just nominating him at their convention. Especially if the Supreme Court rules in his favor... It will add such a feather in Trump's cap... I would think many citizens would see this as another failed ploy of the Democratic Party.
I truely wish we could go way back to when elections were mildly dusty, not knee-deep in mud. (I am referring to both sides).For sure, what we used to call mud slinging was just a little dust in the air compared to today.
I hadn't thought of convention nomination as an end run. That could very will happen.
But then you are back to the question of whether he would be allowed to assume office if, heaven forbid, he won the general election.
Red = disqualified
Green = dismissed
Light Blue = voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff
Dark Blue = pending challenges
As noted, Mass and Illinois look like they need to go dark blue.
As of 12/29/23
That is a lot of states!And the CA Sec State is not giving up, in spite of what Newsome wants.
A great conversation between Bill Kristol and Tom Joscelyn about January 6 that is worth the watch (which means every far-right member will ignore).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GcoZBYShMcThe NY AG upped her asking price for the Trump's and Trump organization crimes - $370 million plus the cessation of his businesses in NY state. Couldn't happen to a nicer criminal.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics … index.htmlThis headline is what the Supreme Court decision SHOULD be about - Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Trump can be barred from holding office
It really isn't whether Trump can be on a ballot or not, but if elected, can he be sworn in. All of this posturing is to get to the answer of THAT question before the general election is over and it is too late.
I don't know if the Conservatives on the Supreme Court have the guts to provide an answer. And in answering that question, they will show whether they actually believe in the Constitution or their own ideology.
To me, the answer is a slam-dunk that Trump cannot hold office. Why? Because to any reasonable person not caught up in a cult:
1. By observation, Trump clearly engaged in or provided aid and comfort to an insurrection
2. The presidency is an office of the United States as defined in dozens of places in the Constitution.
3. That this is a Republic with shared powers between the federal and state governments.
Saying "the will of the People should matter in this case" is a red herring. The People only matter AFTER these FOUR Conditions have been met.
1. The presidential candidate will be 35 when assuming office. If they aren't, then they could receive 100% of the vote, and they still couldn't hold office!
2. The presidential candidate has resided in the United States for at least 4 years.
3. The presidential candidate is a "natural-born" citizen
4. The presidential candidate, as an officer in any state or federal government, has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution at some point and then gone on to engage in or abet an insurrection. (Ironically, any one of the insurrectionists who were caught COULD hold office if they had not previously sworn and oath to protect the Constitution!).
If any one of those conditions is violated, then the Constitution says the People have no say in the matter.
That is what the SC must decide, was Section 3 of the 14th Amendment violated by Donald Trump? In my view, they must. Why? BECAUSE:
1. As the former President, he swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, AND
2. Trump both engaged in and abetted an insurrection No conviction needed
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics … index.htmlAn interesting and informative read that should interest you: https://time.com/6137604/history-insurrection-jan-6/
Under your reasoning we have had a long string of "insurrectionists" and insurrections through our history. The most obvious was the confederate states, but using your reasoning that makes Trump an insurrectionist, so were Martin Luther King and Harriet Tubman (soon to be honored on our medium of exchange). The rioters attacking a federal building in Portland Or. were "insurrectionists". Ammon Bundy was an insurrectionist, as was Frank Holt, Irvin Flores Rodríguez and Laura Whitehorn, all of whom attacked the capitol building, and much more violently that we saw on Jan. 6. Nor did any of these people stand back and watch; all were intimately involved with the actions that took place.
Oddly enough, none of these insurrectionists were charged with engaging in or abetting an insurrection. Just Trump, which really does point to political machinations rather than legal truths. You, and others in your political camp, are trying to change the historical meaning of the word "insurrection" to something that history does not support, solely to get rid of a politician that you don't like.Trump has not been charged as an insurrectionist and again the Constitution in amendment 14 section 3 does not include the word conviction as a requirement. The people that you listed, did any of them attempt to run for public office? I think that's the key difference.
And yet, the court has declared he IS an "insurrectionist", without any conviction. Their ruling is based on that, is it not?
Are you hinting you must run for office to be charged with insurrection? Given the actions of most of our politicians that might even make sense!
One of these days I hope you figure out you don't need to be convicted of being an insurrection to be one. Just like you don't need to be convicted of running red lights even though you do all the time.
As to your last misstatement, you need to read Sec 3, 14th Amendment.Another example of showing a complete lack of understanding of the issues being argued. We really should have a misstatement or lie counter.
Maybe read the full 14th Amendment... The Supreme Court will very much not only read the 14th, but they may have a long look at the 5th, as well as the 1st Amendment.
Trump's case in Colorado was based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly states, "(n)o person shall…hold any office…who…previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same."
The Fourteenth Amendment introduces complex legal questions in Trump's case, with the Colorado Court addressing some while dismissing others, such as First Amendment rights and the balance between state and federal sovereignty. Of particular significance is the Colorado Court's failure to adequately address due process.
The Constitution outlines 'due process' in the Bill of Rights, specifically under the Fifth Amendment. It asserts that no individual should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal proceedings, involving fair and established legal procedures such as a trial, burden of proof, and limitations on the process.
Crucially, it appears Colorado did not conduct a jury trial to assess if Trump was an insurrectionist, failed to provide the necessary evidence, and neglected to adhere to rigorous rules of evidence or procedures. Furthermore, the burden of proof used against Trump did not meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Emphasizing the importance of rules and due process, these shortcomings raise critical concerns.
I would well think the Supreme Court will consider all of Trump's rights under the Constitution.You think the Supreme Court will consider all of Trump's rights while ignoring that Trump was given a trial before a judge ruled on the issue fulfilling his due process rights completely? He had his day in court, and lost this one.
I have not found any info regarding if he was allowed a jury trial. I would agree with you if he chose not to have a jury. Thus far my research comes up empty on that question.
At any rate, he has been allowed to be heard in the Supreme Court. This will complete due process.Not sure why a jury trial is necessary to get a ruling on a finding of fact. Just as someone who is not 35 or not a naturalized citizen would not need a jury trial to determine the facts of the case that they are disqualified under the Constitution. Judges rule on the Constitutionality of issues, not juries.
Can you present the law where it says a jury trial was required in this administrative hearing? Unless I am mistaken, This was neither a criminal nor civil trial where an individual can face jail time or financial penalties. This was a trial about whether the Colorado Secretary of State must follow Colorado law requiring a candidate to be "Qualified".
So, all this obfuscation about jury trials, reasonable doubt, etc is just red herrings and misdirection on the part of Trump supporters.
I have read it, several times. Unless the plaintiffs raise the 1st (which I think the Colorado Republicans did) and 5th Amendments, the Justices won't consider them.
But in any case, you claimed those were reviewed by the Michigan Appeals or Supreme Court, and they were NOT. At least according to the link you provided.
As to your due process claim, Trump was afforded due process in both Colorado and Maine. In Colorado, the judge DID hold a trial at which Trump was defended and she found, after due process, that Trump had engaged in Insurrection (the 5th Amendment requirement was met. Maybe not to your liking, but met nevertheless. The Colorado Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and listening to Trump's lawyers, concurred.
As to the 1st Amendment, it doesn't seem the Republicans have a leg to stand on either - UNLESS - they are going to argue that NONE of the requirements to be President matter, e.g. the requirement for being 35 years old. (It does not go unnoticed that you and others have failed to address my hypothetical about age, I can understand why.)
You seem to think, wrongly, that this was a criminal proceeding where those things you mention actually matter. This was an administrative hearing as to whether Trump was qualified or not. Where in the Constitution does it say that for a non-criminal trial, a jury is required. It certainly wasn't in what you quoted.
The US Supreme Court hasn't indicated yet what parts of the case it wants to listen to. My guess is it will be one or more of three things:
1. Is the Office of the President consider an "office" with regard to Section 3?
2. Are states allowed to write their own lays about their own election process? (Seems like a slam-dunk yes, especially for this Conservative Supreme Court)
3. Did, as a matter of fact, Trump engage in or provide support for an effort that meets the common definition of insurrection.
You probably should go reread the definition of "insurrection". When you do, you will find that your examples don't qualify as insurrectionists. Not reading things seem to lead you into a lot of false analogies.
Also, you have ignored the fact that none of the people who have been banned from office (Confederates) under the 14th Amendment in the past were "Convicted" of insurrection. Explain that with your theory.Trump was charged with engaging in or abetting an insurrection? That's the latest false claim in a long line of them. I've agreed that Portland and Bundy were both insurrections under the definition. You could say that Minneapolis also certainly qualifies. But just because prosecutors choose to charge for other easier to prove crimes would not absolve these people in a civil case should they have chosen to re-run for office and had already served like Couy Griffin in New Mexico in 2022. And he was not charged with insurrection either, but still ruled ineligible to hold public office again because there was little doubt that he engaged in the insurrection on January 6.
Did you read the link? It isn't very long, even for someone not interested in anything but keeping Trump from office.
"Insurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt. https://www.britannica.com/topic/insurrection-politics
Every one of the people I listed participated in an organized (and mostly violent) act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority. MLK led protests rebelling against it. Tubman aided in violating the law helping black people. The rest all took violent action against our government.
So explain again that they were not "insurrectionists", rebelling against our government? Or do you claim that planting bombs in the halls of congress is not rebelling, or is not violent?Tubman and King are just failed attempts to smear the most revered black people in the United States, if trying to call 'protests' (your word) and aiding black people who were stolen from Africa become free as insurrection. That just displays a complete misunderstanding of the word and it opens the question why even attempt that kind of smear. It seems pretty obvious based on trying to include them with so little cause.
And this goes back to exactly the point: both MLK and Tubman violated the law, actively participating in rebelling against the government.
But we all agree their causes were just and therefore their actions were not "insurrections". Unfortunately for that concept the law does not take into consideration what we think; only what the law says, and under any reasonable definition both of those people were guilty of insurrection, and to a much higher level than Trump was.
Our law is, to a large extent, based on history; the next question is why Trump is charged with insurrection when these people, actively participating to a much greater degree and actually doing something rather than just flapping their lips, were not. The answer is pretty obvious; people are going after Trump to remove him as a political candidate.
You can scream to the heavens "No! No! No!", but history and actions today shows differently. Actions speak louder than words, just as Kings and Tubmans actions speak louder than Trumps words.You are right, actions speak volumes, and you trying to say the protests that King led, something guaranteed in the Constitution, equate to insurrection is ridiculous. And then to try and equate any violation of the law to insurrection is also another false equivalency which, again, just shows a complete misunderstanding of the word insurrection. Trying to equate either of those people to someone who tried to steal a presidential election and incited a violent mob to assist in that endeavor is laughable, even for you.
He rebelled against the government.
Perhaps you missed the definition from Brittinica:
"Insurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects"
Can you point out what was ridiculous, given the definition? Only that you find his cause just or will you claim he did not rebel?Yes, I can easily point out that someone given the Nobel Peace Prize for organizing peaceful protests to raise awareness for just causes is being viewed as an insurrectionist. Protest is not a revolt or rebellion. Protest is a Constitutionally protected act. That's what makes your argument ridiculous.
For sure; Harriet Tubman was only "protesting" as she used the underground railroad to aid and abet people violating the law. Want to try again?
Your deflection bores me, as you failed to have the basic knowledge to understand that the post you were responding to was about MLK. As does your false equivalency of violating laws as just having to be an insurrection.
Deflection. You mean as in changing the topic from what is an insurrection and do we charge people with it to a discussion of MLK?
So, a person who helps a murderer evade the police is also an insurrectionist by your definition? ROFL.
Who rebelled against the government, MLK? How dumb do you think we are to by that line of fantasy? Where is your PROOF.
Granted, he tried to get the government to change some bad laws BUT, he did not try to stop the government from functioning which Trump and his army did for a little while. Therefore, Trump and his goons are the insurrectionists, not MLK.
Your comment is so much BS and right wing spin, Wilderness.
Neither Tubman or MLK were holding public offices nor swore under oath. They did not attempt to subvert the electoral process as prescribed in the Constitution.
So, go spin your top to your hearts content, I will see this Trump ultimately at the end of his rope and as they say, “one mustn’t cheat the hangman”…"Neither Tubman or MLK were holding public offices nor swore under oath."
Nowhere in the definition given earlier is mention of holding office or being sworn under oath.
Try again?Wilderness, if you are attempting to compare Trump with either MLk or Tubman, it is based upon false equivalency. Charges against Trump of insurrection is based on Amendment 14, Section 3. The same rationale used by states to remove Trump from their ballots. Violation is based upon reneging on the oath of office public officials take. Neither MLK or Harriet Tubman had taken such a public oath of office.
There is a difference between riots that have occurred throughout this nations history and attempts at insurrection. Short of Jefferson Davis, Trump has no peer in this matter.
So, to attempt to compare such disparate examples makes my rather modest BS detector sound off like an air raid siren.You are justifying your answering on the disqualification outcome, not on the actions. Although I find a couple of his argument about the actions being insurrection quite ludicrous. Those that attacked a police station in Minneapolis could be seen as insurrectionists, by definition.
Wilderness is trying to argue that peaceful protests, or any violations of law that Tubman took, should be counted as revolt or rebellion, which legal scholars note would have to include the premeditated organization of violence against that government or authority. And why his arguments fail on their face. In the case of January 6, multiple convictions for seditious conspiracy back the case that it was, indeed, an insurrection as it has that premeditation.Perhaps it the stringent nature of the Oxford definition.
I have a hard time grasping any riot as insurrection rather than the airing of grievances by the frustrated and fed up. I don’t know of any such movement peaceful or otherwise that really threatened the overthrow of Government of the United States or interfered with the prescribed Constitutionally protected manner of governance. MAGA has and it’s a first, in my opinion.The legal definition has the statute as insurrection or rebellion. Which when wilderness uses his alternative version of the English language dictionary, it gives him some latitude to reach his conclusions based on rebellion also showing up there and coming closer to the legal definition. You and I prefer Oxford, where the definition needs that violent component.
But where his argument fails is not being able to differentiate between peaceful protests and rebellion - he is falsely trying to equate the two. Riots against government buildings or authority are easier to equate, although I think spontaneous riots still vary a bit from rebellion, based on premeditation.You're on the right track. But have you forgotten the pallets of bricks and fire starter scattered around Portland before the nightly riot? Have you forgotten the caravans that entered other cities to continue the damage? It's called premeditation.
Trump, on the other hand, held a rally. From that he exhorted rally goers to "march peacefully" and "fight like hell" to retain our democratic process. No premeditation, no involvement in the riot (if it can be called that when compared the 100+ days of violence in Portland); no violence (from Trump)
And without that premeditation, without that violence, no insurrection from Trump. Not even from the idiots at the capitol as there was never any chance, not the tiniest possibility, that they could overthrow the government.I've conceded Portland as an insurrection in previous posts in this thread, try and keep up.
And Trump had a plan to send the angry mob to the Capitol, one he insured would be armed, and incited them with statements like 'fight like hell.' He had plans that included more than a rally, and tweeted out an incitement during the violence, despite your denials of these basic facts. Or the claim that an insurrection has to overthrow the government, something you always try and sell as necessary when it is not.
Between the denials, the false equivalencies, and the made up requirements, I think I'm done engaging with you on this topic. You're in your own reality here and it's a waste of time.Yeah, and the "fight like hell" has been discussed at length in this and other threads. It has been beaten to death and yet you still (falsely) claim that you read Trumps mind and know he meant with physical violence.
You also read his mind and know he had plans other than the rally - good for you, but no one else has access to that crystal ball.
But you are right - there is little need to try and engage in a discussion with you over anything at all even potentially touching on Trump. Or that can be twisted to include Trump, TRUMP BAD MAN is the thing in your glasses and everything else defaults to that one statement.And there you go again lying about what was actually stated. And then showing a complete lack of understanding about testimony given under oath to Congress about Trump stating his plans about sending the crowd to the Capitol. Lies and stating things that have been proven false with testimony. When someone just makes stuff up, as you do, that's why you're not worth the time to engage.
But, unfortunately, the lies, misinformation, disinformation, and distortions must be rebutted.
Actually, the majority of Americans can read Trump's mind regarding those issues. Apparently you are one of the few can't.
Oh, and TRUMP IS A VERY BAD MAN. Just ask anyone not in his Cult."Actually, the majority of Americans can read Trump's mind"
Fascinating. Is Biden welcoming hordes of ET's instead of people across our southern border? Because humans don't read minds, although some use their imagination to make themselves think they do.Must I remind you again that jurors "read minds" all the time.
And there you have it. Riots and demonstrations die not threaten the overthrow of Government of the United States...and neither did those idiots armed with a flagpole that occupied the capital Jan 6. No one with a grain of sense thinks they could overthrow our government with that puny riot.
But, Trump with his elaborate scheme did threaten the overthrow of the United States and for that he will be held accountable.
There is absolutely zero chance that a handful if unarmed yahoos (not Trump for he wasn't there) entering the capitol illegally could ever overthrow the US government.
Trump will (I expect) be held accountable...but not for participating in an insurrection. Instead he will be held accountable for not toeing the Democratic Party line. It won't be worded that way, of course, but that is the root of it.1,700 and counting (found 3 more in Florida this week) is not a handful.
"Unarmed" is simply a lie.
By definition when the insurrectionists stopped Congress from fulfilling its Constitutional duties, they succeeded in their Coup.
Trump will be held accountable for a multitude of well-documented crimes.
Armed with flagpoles AND GUNS and RIFLES.
Anyone with a grain of sense understands that stopping the certification of the next president CONSTITUTES, however temporarily, the overthrow of the government.One shot was fired that day --- that was by one law enforcement officer who felt threatened by a protester. Those that were found to have brought guns on U.S. Capitol Grounds were arrested, and charged.
I prefer this one as it speaks to the current discussion:
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - 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.
Can rioters be considered insurrectionists? Maybe - it depends on the situation. But, what is for certain, the types of peaceful protests that MLK ran (Tubman didn't protest anything that I am aware of, it is surprising Wilderness pick on her to prove his point) are NOT examples of insurrection.
This is true as well for the 9,000 protestors at the Capitol who DID NOT violate the Capitol or injure police. It is only true for those almost 2,000 who attempted to overthrow the governments.The first after the attack on Fort Sumpter.
1. Insurrection is not necessarily violent, although it usually is. Do I need to copy/paste the definition again?
2. The entire point of the examples given (all of them, not just MLK) was that such acts have occurred frequently over our history, for many, many decades. And only Trump, in an effort to remove a political rival, has been declared guilty of the crime.
3. Our Constitution is designed to provide equal protection, and punishment, to everyone. If Trump is declared an insurrectionist then thousands of others should have been as well, and thousands more in the future.
4. As those insurrectionists in our past, as recently as a few years, were not charged with the crime then Trump should not be either, particularly as he did very little compared to the actions of those that directly and violently attacked US buildings and people.Considering your definition is not from the official dictionary of the English language, I don't need to you post something from an unofficial source. Hence why you're stuck on an insurrection not needing to contain violence, while the rest of us do. You fail to understand simple differences between peaceful protests versus insurrections. With that failure, this conversation is going nowhere.
*shrug* Put up your own "official" definition then. It is nit picking anyway and doesn't matter in a discussion of why only selective individuals, although all are guilty, are called "insurrectionists".
Is that why you didn't address the other points: because you want to nitpick over inconsequentials rather than honestly discuss the points made?
# 3 says that if one murderer is not charged, then none should be. Is that your position?
Protests, by definition, are not rebellions or insurrections, period.
Riots can be, depending on the situation. Protestors, by and very large, are not rioters.
Your view of history maybe, but that is quite distorted.
You falsely claim that Tubman and MLK are insurrectionist without one iota proof. Right now no one of consequence believes you and figure it is just another attempt to distract.
Provide proof. Show us what function of the federal government they attempted to or actually did shut down. Even your goto example of Portland and the Courthouse doesn't fit the bill. What government function were the protesters trying to stop from happening? Isn't that what insurrection is all about?Not necessarily. I would agree with the Portland and Minneapolis as they were a violent attack on government, that certainly qualifies in my book. And I use Oxford, because it's recognized as the official dictionary of the English language for my definition of insurrection:
- a violent uprising against an authority or government.
And why I don't see Tubman or King as fitting the definition, but instead just someone's weak attempt to smear some of the most famous black civil rights leaders in history. Likely because of their own issues with those kinds of people.“And why I don't see Tubman or King as fitting the definition, but instead just someone's weak attempt to smear some of the most famous black civil rights leaders in history. Likely because of their own issues with those kinds of people.”
It is, most definitely….
"Show us what function of the federal government they attempted to or actually did shut down."
Slavery. I'm surprised you didn't know that.MLK fought against slavery? Hahahahahahahaha. Only if he was 148 years old.
Cmon, Wilderness, do you really need such a refresher in American History?
Slavery was not a function of the federal government, even when protected by the states where slavery was not permitted. Did Tubman, F. Douglass and other like them storm the Capitol building with slaves or former slaves or interfere with lawmakers passing such laws regulating slavery? Where did you read that? WHO can blame them if they did? What can be more heinous than to think that one has the right to own another human being? The fact that you even suggest to bring this up makes you part of the MAGA resentfuls."Slavery was not a function of the federal government"
Really? Perhaps it is you that needs to study up on it. The US government was formed with the approval of slavery - had it not been so the southern states would not have been a part of the United States.
And, when the government began to sway the other way, refusing to support slavery, Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee and others absolutely did take action.
Whether slavery is heinous or not has absolutely zero to do with whether one commits insurrection, and using the horror to declare that those people were NOT insurrectionists is not defensible in the slightest.
Credence, the entire point is that people have rebelled and attacked our government for 200 years, and done so without being declared guilty of that particular crime. It is not about why they did it, where they did it, how they did it or anything else. It is about a rebellion against the authority of the United States (or even state) government. Whether justified in our minds is irrelevant; people have been involved in insurrections (active rebellion against our government) for years and years. If we allowed that without reaction then Trump must also be excused. That you disagree with his reasons plays no part at all in such a conclusion.
Or at least it should not. Obviously it does.Trump is not excused.
He and his MAGA henchmen are accused of attempting to cheat millions of Americans of their rightful choice in 2020 for President. He WAS involved in the false elector scheme for which many participants are being charged on the state level, making false certifications. His being in office and attempting to acquire the Presidency by cheating, how do we excuse that, Wilderness? That in direct defiance of the oath that he took in 2017.
The scale and magnitude of this is unprecedented. Besides the he said/she said, it is the most damning aspect against Trump. What he did was criminal and I can’t for the life of me do not understand why you can’t see that…..Nope - changing the subject is not allowed. The question asked is "why is only Trump, out of tens of thousands of insurrections, guilty of the crime of insurrection?".
Not about declaring the vote invalid and false (it was in more than a few cases), not about secret documents, not about a sex scandal. It is about why only Trump is charged out of historical millions that participated in an "insurrection" as defined by those charging Trump.And I ask - Who Cares. He has not been indicted for Insurrection or Rebellion. As a matter of FACT, he has been found that he engaged in it, but he is not charged with it. He will serve no time for the insurrection he led.
I agree! The goal has been met (at least in a couple of states); to remove Trump from politics. Anything else is just icing on the cake.
Please name the last time Congresspeople were chased out of their place of work (meaning the Capitol), while working such that they had to stop the Constitutionally mandated process of certifying Biden and hide for their lives?
NO, American history is NOT full of examples of insurrection. There are only a very few: Shey's Rebellion and the Civil War are the only ones that truly qualify.
He will NEVER provide PROOF on any of the fantastical claims he makes. He, like Trump, just makes them and throws them out there to see who will bite.
You did not provide PROOF. Why not???
Is there an office of slavery in the federal government? Was there ever an office of slavery in the federal government? ROFL because you appear to be twisting in the wind at this point of the discussion.
I couldn't find much out about the author of the opinion piece you offered other than she is the author of one book, writes fiction, writes poetry, and is a lawyer. That said, I find some of the words she uses and the tone she takes a bit odd and makes me wonder where her loyalties lie. For example, she writes
This much is undisputed: hundreds of rally attendees—some armed with metal flagpoles, baseball bats, pepper spray and stun guns—smashed their way into the Capitol building and loitered in the halls, splintering off to rummage through offices or maraud an empty chamber of Congress. Five people died on that day as a result of the clash between the crowd and Capitol police, and at least 140 were reportedly injured.
The whole tone of that beginning is minimizing. First - it wasn't "hundreds", but was at Least 10,000 (Why the misstatement of FACT?). Second - it was more than "some" who were armed, it was upwards of 1,000 (Why the misstatement of FACT?). Third - she omitted that real guns and rifles were being carried by some of the insurrectionists. (Why were these crucial Facts suppressed?). Fourth - she said "loitering in the halls". Is "loitering" the same as chasing after officer Dunn or busting through a window in the House chamber to gain entrance? I think not. (So why is she minimizing what the insurrectionists were doing?) Fifth - she says "maraud an 'empty' chamber", again a gross minimization. (Why didn't she mention the chamber was empty because its occupants were running for their lives?) Sixth - she uses the term "reportedly" to minimize the extent of injury and subsequent death to the defenders of the Capitol. (Why did she disrespect law enforcement so much?)
All of that just in the first paragraph. I forced myself to read further. I am glad I did because it seemed to me a defense of the use of the term "insurrection" and "insurrectionist" to describe what happened on Jan 6.
She spent most of her time showing how the term was used against Blacks throughout American history as they fought to gain their freedom. But she does end with this:
When Ulysses S. Grant invoked the Insurrection Act in March 1871 to deploy federal troops in South Carolina to help put down the paramilitary Ku Klux Klan, it was abundantly clear that violent Klan members were the “insurrectionists.” But such use of the term has been rare. And for those who resist the word “insurrection” to describe the events of Jan. 6, this history may only underline that it may be a troubling harbinger of future state action that then-president elect Joe Biden was among the first people to use it.
In the end, the resistance of some commentators against the label “insurrection” is, in essence, a defense against being redefined and thusly marked with the presumption of guilt, perpetually scanned by the sensor of societal suspicion, prospectively analyzed as a threat to the state—a predicament traditionally reserved for Black people in the United States.
To me that reads like she opposes NOT USING the word "insurrection" in regards to what happened on Jan 6.
My hat is off to all of you who still wrestle with the folks in this discussion. You have more patience than I have. Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to you as well. Glad to see you are still reading.
Speaking of new norms..this is one of Trump's kookier lawyers sounding more like she's part of a mob ring: Saying the quid pro quo part out loud!
"I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them,” Habba told Sean Hannity on Fox News. “You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the President went through hell to get into place, he’ll step up.”
Step up to what? Why? Because he owes Trump for his job? She should be sanctioned by the bar for saying this on TV and thus trying to prejudice a proceeding.
And from Trump on the school shooting in Iowa..
"We’re really with you as much as anybody can be. It’s a very terrible thing that happened. It's just terrible, That’s just horrible. It’s so surprising to see it here. But we have to get over it. We have to move forward"
Just another school shooting, nothing to see here, move on, no plan, act like it didn't happen, thoughts and prayers...yada yada yada..
Seven were wounded and an 11-year-old student was killed Thursday. One student was shot 12 times. But yeah let's move on. What a sickening, empty statement. He seems to have sociopathic tendencies. I don't think he's capable of empathy. How many other children will not make it through the current school year alive? Yet we need to move on right?
He quickly moved his speech into his usual self-absorbed lunacy. Doesn't matter to his supporters, anything can be overlooked as long as they get the glorious MAGA agenda... Which is what by the way? His 'speeches" are filled solely with grievance, thirst for revenge, fear and hate. That seems to be the agenda.I don't think it is "seems to be". Multiple mental health professionals have opined, based on their observations of Trump's behaviour and words, that Trump is clearly a sociopath.
Trump said Former President Donald Trump on Saturday suggested the Civil War could have been avoided through “negotiation,” arguing that the fight to end slavery in the US was ultimately unnecessary and that Abraham Lincoln should have done more to avoid bloodshed.
“So many mistakes were made. See, there was something I think could have been negotiated, to be honest with you,” Trump said at a campaign event in Newton, Iowa. “I think you could have negotiated that. All the people died. So many people died.”
ROFL - Doesn't this uninformed, mentally unstable, delusional know that is EXACTLY what was going on until the Confederacy sucker punched America at Fort Sumpter? What an idiot.
And speaking about the Civil War itself, he says “It was, I don’t know, it was just different,” Trump said of the war. “I just find it – I’m so attracted to seeing it.” (SHUDDER)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/06/politics … index.htmlThe latest Washington Post/University of Maryland poll shows just how much they have been conned by the greatest master of the con since Adolf Hitler. it is so sad to see so many Americans caught in the grips of this Jim Jones-style Cult.
From Jan 3 - 5 CBS/YouGov poll of 2,157 adults
1. IS DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW SECURE?
There is general agreement among all demographics except for Under 30 that democracy is Somewhat or Very Threatened:
Under 30 - 46%; Remainder - ~78%
Total - 70% (more or less even split across demographics)
2. DO YOU APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THOSE WHO BROKE INTO THE CAPITOL?
As expected this breaks down across Party lines as to who strongly or somewhat disapproves. Astonishingly (and depressingly) fully 1/3 of Republicans think what the insurrectionists did was OK.
Republican - 70%; Dems or Independents - 83%
3. WAS THE CAPITOL BREAKIN AN "INSURRECTION"
There is a major break between demographics on this one. If you lean Right, you don't think so and if you lean Left, there is no question. (Results for YES)
Republican - 26%; Independent - 52%; Democrat - 83%
Conservative - 28%; Moderate - 60%; Liberal - 84%
White, No College Degree - 45%; White, College Degree - 57%
4. WAS THE ACTIONS OF THOSE WHO BROKE-IN TO THE CAPITAL PATRIOTIC?
There is a major break between demographics on this one. If you lean Right, you don't think so and if you lean Left, there is no question. (Results for NO)
Republican - 49%; Independent - 70%; Democrat - 81%
Conservative - 46%; Moderate - 74%; Liberal - 86%
White, No College Degree - 63%; White, College Degree - 73%
5. WAS JANUARY 6 AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT?
Again, there is a major break between demographics on this one. If you lean Right, you don't think so and if you lean Left, there is no question. (Results for YES)
Republican - 27%; Independent - 50%; Democrat - 79%
Conservative - 26%; Moderate - 57%; Liberal - 82%
White, No College Degree - 45%; White, College Degree - 50%
6. TRYING TO KEEP DONALD TRUMP IN POWER?
This is another variation of the same question and again, there is a major break between demographics on this one. If you lean Right, you don't think so and if you lean Left, there is no question. (Results for YES)
Republican - 40%; Independent - 60%; Democrat - 86%
Conservative - 38%; Moderate - 66%; Liberal - 90%
White, No College Degree - 57%; White, College Degree - 63%
7. WAS JANUARY 6 A PROTEST THAT WENT TOO FAR?
There is much more agreement when the question is phrased this way. (Results for YES)
Republican - 80%; Independent - 72%; Democrat - 70%
Conservative - 69%; Moderate - 70%; Liberal - 79%
White, No College Degree - 76%; White, College Degree - 71%
8. WHO WERE THE PARTICIPANTS?
The narrative put out by the Right is that it was someone other than Trump supporters who rioted at the Capitol I surprising number of Republicans have bought into this myth.
Republican: Typical Trump Supporters - 12%; Atypical Trump Supporters - 51%; Someone Else - 37%
Independents: Typical Trump Supporters - 37%; Atypical Trump Supporters - 44%; Someone Else - 19%
Democrats: Typical Trump Supporters - 65%; Atypical Trump Supporters - 26%; Someone Else - 9%
9. WHAT WAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TRYING TO DO ON JANUARY 6?
The narrative put out by the Right is that somehow law enforcement was encouraging the rioters, another Republican myth but one that has gained some traction.
Republicans: Stop the Protest - 31%; Encourage the Protest - 20%; Both - 26%; Neither - 23%
Independents: Stop the Protest - 33%; Encourage the Protest - 18%; Both - 26%; Neither - 23%
Democrats: Stop the Protest - 54%; Encourage the Protest - 9%; Both - 22%; Neither - 15%
10. SHOULD TRUMP'S NAME BE REMOVED FROM THE BALLOT?
This one will be answered by the U.S. Supreme Court. (Results for YES)
Republican - 10%; Independent - 44%; Democrat - 81%
Conservative - 15%; Moderate - 52%; Liberal - 78%
White, No College Degree - 35%; White, College Degree - 46%
11. WAS PRESIDNT BIDEN THE LEGITIMATE WINNER IN 2020?
There should be no doubt in anybody's mind, yet in a certain segment, there is. The results show just how effective Trump's election lies have been.(Results for YES)
Republican - 29%; Independent - 62%; Democrat - 93%
Conservative - 34%; Moderate - 72%; Liberal - 91%
White, No College Degree - 47%; White, College Degree - 70%
So, in summary (and taking my cues from Moderates) we find that Much of America believes regarding what happened on January 6th at the Capitol:
* American democracy and Rule of Law is less than secure
* The Capitol break-in was NOT okay and amounted to an unpatriotic Insurrection that attempted to overthrow our government by typical Trump supporters in order to keep Trump in power and that the Capitol and Metropolitan police were trying to stop it.
* That Trump should be kept off the ballot.
* And President Biden won the 2020 election.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jan-6-opin … 024-01-06/This is not the only poll to show such a stark picture of who believes in the real world and who lives in the fantasy world of Trump.
Polls are good for gauging how people feel about things they see. They are terrible, however, at differentiating between fact and feelings.
The best example of that is the economy.
By any set of objective measures, the American economy is doing very well, far outstripping most of the rest of the world and supported by most economists without an agenda. Yet, President Biden is getting beat to a pulp in the polls on the economy. Why? Because people don't FEEL they are reaping the benefits of the good economy. (That is now starting to change, especially if the next Consumer Sentiment and related measure show continued improvement.) And that "Feeling" is reflected in the polls even though objective measures tell the opposite story.
Another good example is brought into stark relief in this poll about issues around Jan 6. It SHOULD (but WON'T) be enough to convince anyone with any amount of open-mindedness left what is reality and what is fantasy.
Those that believe and use polls should now know without a doubt that:
1. The Real World knows Donald Trump is lying to them and playing them for fools while those living in the fantasy world believe Trump, a proven liar.is telling them the truth.
2. The Real World has President Biden winning in a fair election while the fantasy world says he didn't.
3. The Real World understands that those who led and/or invaded the Capitol are insurrectionists while those living in the fantasy world of Trump think the opposite, that these criminals are patriots.
Do I think this will change many minds? NO! I am hopeful, however, that it will be enough to break through wall of what is in reality a Cult and change at least one mind. For the rest, their goal is to reelect a dictator-in-waiting and no amount of TRUTH or LOGIC will sway them from that goal.
Why is this so? Because the power of Trump's, Fox's, and the rest of the Right-Wing propaganda machine's rhetoric has physically changed the neural pathways that impact reasoning in these cult member's brains. Trump's rhetoric is no less addicting than say heroin, fentanyl, or nicotine.
All three drugs physically change the neural pathways in the brain of those susceptible to the drugs power which results in forming a "habit" or "addiction". Studies consistently show that the same "programming" is achieved from using the over-the-top, inflammatory rhetoric Trump et al uses. Words and phrases like "vermin" and "infected the blood" for what ever reason alters neural pathways in the brains of those already programmed to accept such rhetoric as truth.
And this poll reflects that reality. It clearly, unequivocally shows who live in the real world and those that don't.As an aside, what Trump is good at is keeping a negative emotion causing stress requiring relief alive through manipulating memory(s). He posits he is the relief.
Very true. He does that without admitting he is the cause of the stress. Sort of like a fireman setting a building ablaze to reap the glory of putting it out.
Here is one poll you omitted --- Biden sinks further in the polls to an average of Approve 38.7% https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bi … al-rating/
This is dismal... Bidens polling on border Just 32 percent of Americans said in the new CBS News poll released Sunday that they approved of Biden’s handling of the border — a number that CBS notes is the all-time low for the president on this question. Overall, 68 percent in the new poll disapprove of how Biden is handling the border.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … -low-poll/
A fraying coalition: Black, Hispanic, young voters abandon Biden as election year begins
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 072111007/
Gallop -- https://news.gallup.com/poll/547763/bid … roval.aspx
Biden’s Current Rating Worse Than Other Modern Presidents at Same Point
Looking at the approval ratings of the past seven presidents at the same point in their first term in office, Biden’s current 39% is the lowest. Barack Obama (43%) and Donald Trump (45%) had slightly higher ratings heading into the year they sought reelection, while all of the others were above 50%.
How low can he go? What are your thoughts about the Democratic party putting forth a new candidate? Should they not be considering a new candidate might provide them a better chance in 2024?You have already said all that and I have beat you to the punch by saying Biden was getting clobbered in the polls for the moment.
My point was, your side is in the distinct minority who are living in fantasyland.
That last one really highlights the delusion of MAGA. 29% to 93%. They need a new planet to live on.
I don't think Trump has ever learned or cares that constant lying is not O.K. He constantly lies to everybody and also to himself. I truly think he believes all his lies all the time. He is a narcissistic master-con artist who not only has conned everybody, but also himself and that is really sick.
I think you're right - for the most part he actually does believe his stories.
Which shows Trump is mentally unfit to even be a dog-catcher.
What should I be focused on? His plan to address these tragedies?
Trump shared his condolences for the victims and their families of a recent school shooting in Iowa during a campaign stop in the Hawkeye State Friday — but then urged his supporters to “move forward.”
“I want to send our support and our deepest sympathies to the victims and families touched by the terrible school shooting yesterday in Perry, Iowa,” Trump said during a campaign rally in Sioux City.
That was the entirety of his statement before he moved on to his usual grievances and hate-filled rhetoric.
What is the glorious maga agenda to address School shootings? Or any other issue? Poverty? Education? Mental health? Crime?, The economy that you think is so horrendous? I don't hear anything out of his mouth other than self-centered grievance and absolute thirst for vengeance of those who have opposed him.
If I have jumped in on the middle of his thoughts, please elaborate where he explains??? I don't give a crap about his meaningless condolences and I'm sure the parents of the dead child don't either. We sort of care about agenda that may make it possible that children aren't killed in school anymore... Isn't that actually what's important? Condolences are completely meaningless especially when you aspire to the office of president. I need more than condolence crap if I'm supposed to vote for you. I want to see every student make it home alive this school year, what's the maga plan to do that? Making America great again means every student comes home alive.. right?https://abovethelaw.com/2022/06/donald- … r-century/
Republicans and Democrats under Trump join together in a bipartisan fashion to address the school shooting plague. They enacted the STOP School Violence and Fix NICS Acts into law, providing grants to improve school safety and strengthening critical background checks for firearm purchases.
I could not agree more, and share your frustration. We need solutions that will ensure all children come home from school alive. New gun laws are needed, and now. This horrendous problem has not been addressed, but handed down to president after president, Congress after Congress...
What is the focus of all these weird mis-information, distortion, and character assasiontion about Trump especially, and Biden? Is the focal point still on Trump, being tried for his so many crimes, or what else? Both Trump and Biden have pasts as human being. I no longer found the big picture of the thread as interesting as it should be. Every figment of the imagination is now being play into the thread. I'm an outsider. And America, should handle her affairs better. And like anyone else, I wait for The Smith's investigation report?
I think "these weird mis-information, distortion, and character assassination" you speak of are only about Biden. Those descriptions about Trump are the truth and therefore not misinformation, distortion, or character assassination.
For example, both sides say each is lacking in mentally acuity to be fit for being president. That is true only of Trump. In one well known book at least 20 mental health professionals make that assessment based on what they see and hear from Trump. There is no analog for Biden.
What Trump supporters are doing is making fun of a person's disability (stuttering) and age related unsteady gait. They are judging a book by its cover without the benefit of the kind of education those mental health professionals possess. They FAIL to mention (actually they don't mention it on purpose) that NOT ONE of them could keep up with President Biden doing his duties, I know I couldn't.
And most of the comments do center around the forum's topic - Did Trump Instigate a Coup?
No question America should handle our affairs better, what Trump is doing to America (and has done) is a great embarrassment. But what can you do? He is free to make us look like idiots as much as he wants.
Personally, I am waiting for the results of: 1) Smith's criminal trial into Trump's coup attempt, 2) Smith's criminal trial into Trump's mishandling of national secrets and possible disseminations to our enemies, 3) the criminal RICO trial for election interference in Georgia, 4) the civil trial in New York where he has already been found guilty of persistent bank fraud, 5) Trump's civil defamation trial of E. G. Carroll, 6) the penalty phase of an earlier Carroll defamation and sexual battery lawsuit which Trump was found guilty of, 7 - 9) civil trials by people injured in his coup attempt, and probably many others I have missed.
Below is a master calendar of Trump's know court dates.
https://www.justsecurity.org/88039/trum … d-to-know/My statements apply to both Biden and Trump. But where ever your discretional opinion take you to that's another thing. However, thanks for the master trial dates. Interesting glean from it: (1) The USA v. Donald Trump. (2) The State of (XYZ) v Donald Trump. 3. ABC v Donald Trump. As to what I can do, my brain don't give an answer. Who wants an interference from an outsider?
All right, so I am a Canadian and I should stay out of this discussion -- but just watch me how I don't care. Talking about Trump, we should focus on his mentality, which has been labeled by experts to be one of a wannabe dictator. The problem with his followers is that they won't believe experts -- they ignore what they don't want to see.
How we choose to characterize his role in Jan 6 event -- may even be of an altogether secondary nature, if it's to establish his eligibility for presidency. Someone with a broken leg cannot qualify for Olympics, regardless of what he did back there to break his leg, or someone else broke it for him.
The dude is constantly lying, insulting his opponents for a lack of a sound argument, "with a vocabulary of a teenager" -- as an expert in linguistics has assessed. He misreads his teleprompter, misspells in his tweets, and keeps paraphrasing what he just said. Don't take my word for it -- just listen to him. The man has no class of a leader as he is short-of swearing and constantly calling names those who don't agree with him.
We may sugarcoat that as much as we want to, but those are the signs of a political agony.
And, maybe, just maybe we should ask ourselves that one important question: WHY, of all previous Republican presidential candidates, he is the ONLY one being "witch-hunted" by Democrats -- if he is so innocent? Is it because of his "hair style"? His allegedly "short fingers"? His wife's "foreign accent"? Really, why is everybody being so nasty to the dude?He is being witch hunted because he actually did what he said he would do, as much as it was possible for one man to do (who had little help within the system).
He put American interests first.
He put forth solid efforts to close the border, making agreements with Mexico to stem the tide... the complete opposite of UN Agendas, the Global Compact on Migration, Open Society - Open Borders, etc.
He refused to start new wars when prompted to by events and told they were required by his 'advisers', two he avoided when pressed were with Iran and Russia/Ukraine.
Iran was being strangled with sanctions, that were crippling their economy and ability to fund terrorists. When Biden took over he released hundreds of billions to Iran, continues to do so, Iran uses those billions to fund the forces we are fighting from Yemen, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.
Trump put his foot down on corporations to remain in America and support American workers, he renegotiated Trade agreements to be more favorable to American interests, etc. etc.
Trump believes in Nation states and keeping America unique which is against everything the UN, the WEF, the Open Society and some of the most powerful entities in the world today are pushing for.
Those efforts by those agencies will not make the lives of Americans better, the uniqueness and wealth of America will be sacrificed for those goals and agendas.
This is what Trump stood against and this is why he is being persecuted, not because he is arrogant, or uses bad speech, or has broken laws. It is based on politics, his politics do not match those that have the power, so they will destroy him, make him look as bad as possible, sound as tyrannical as possible, etc,Trump is being prosecuted because he personally has committed a multitude of crimes and his 2015 campaign colluded with the Russian. Not to a reasonable doubt but clearly by the preponderance of the evidence as the Mueller Report clearly laid out.
Now, provide PROOF of what I claim (which others on Trump's side refuse to do) I offer this.
CONVICTIONS:
- Defamation
- Sexual Battery
- Persistent Bank Fraud
INDICTEMENTS (For which there is substantial evidence we know about)
- Solicitation of violation of oath by public officer
- False statements and writings
- Filing false documents
- Solicitation of violation of oath by public officer
- Violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
- Conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer
- Conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree
- Conspiracy to commit false statements and writings
- Falsifying business records in the first degree (already found GUILTY)
- Willful retention of national defense information
- False statements and representations
- Conspiracy to obstruct justice
- Withholding a document or record
- Corruptly concealing a document or record
- Concealing a document in a federal investigation
- Scheme to conceal
- Altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing an object
- Corruptly altering, destroying, mutilating or concealing a document, record, or other object
- Conspiracy to defraud the United States
- Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
- Obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding
- Conspiracy against rights
NOT ONE OF THOSE IS BASED ON POLITICS!!!!
And THIS is who some people on this forum will make a good president, ROFL. My God - a convicted sexual batterer.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/07 … %20guilty.
Welcome to the fray. It is always good to have a non-American's point of view on our struggle to keep our democracy.
Val, who said that you should stay out? Opinions that are outside of the fray are refreshing to hear.
But as you explained, there are many reasons why non MAGA fanatics have problems with Trump and his potential ascension to the highest office in the country. Trump is not like any previous Republican candidates, worse than even the less desirable of them.
I have a little money, is there room for me up there for me in Canada?
Maybe he can go to 29%, which is where Trump landed to end his single, failed term.
As much as my previous assessment of Trump may clash with what I am about to say, I honestly hope he gets elected -- I am proverbially "dying to see" how he would "make America great again". Well, I've been wrong before, not scared of being wrong again. People learn -- I do, and hopefully others do as well.
Look I'm laughing innocently. D' you really like me? Valeant, humanly has a good point. Putting every negative on his part aside, he try giving Trump a second chance. My interest is for God to save America!
New details from the Smith probe on what Trump was doing and saying. As J 6 rioters ransacked the Capitol.
Smith is getting people to talk..Many of the exclusive details come from the questioning of Trump's former deputy chief of staff, Dan Scavino (whose stonewalled the j6 committee)
Scavino told Smith's investigators that as the violence began to escalate that day, Trump "was just not interested" in doing more to stop it.
Sources also said former Trump aide Nick Luna told federal investigators that when Trump was informed that then-Vice President Mike Pence had to be rushed to a secure location, Trump responded, "So what?" -- which sources said Luna saw as an unexpected willingness by Trump to let potential harm come to a longtime loyalist.
But what sources now describe to ABC News are the assessments and first-hand accounts of several of Trump's own advisers who stood by him for years -- and were among the few to directly engage with him throughout that day.
According to what sources said Scavino told Smith's team, Trump was "very angry" that day -- not angry at what his supporters were doing to a pillar of American democracy, but steaming that the election was allegedly stolen from him and his supporters, who were "angry on his behalf." Scavino described it all as "very unsettling," sources said.
At times, Trump just sat silently at the head of the table, with his arms folded and his eyes locked on the TV, Scavino recounted, sources said.
After unsuccessfully trying for up to 20 minutes to persuade Trump to release some sort of calming statement, Scavino and others walked out of the dining room, leaving Trump alone, sources said. That's when, according to sources, Trump posted a message on his Twitter account saying that Pence "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done."
Trump's aides told investigators they were shocked by the post. Aside from Trump, Scavino was the only other person with access to Trump's Twitter account.
Scavino said he was as blindsided by the post as they were, insisting to them, "I didn't do it," according to the sources.
Some of Trump's aides then returned to the dining room to explain to Trump that a public attack on Pence was "not what we need," as Scavino put it to Smith's team. "But it's true," Trump responded, sources told ABC News. Trump has publicly echoed that sentiment since then.
More than a half-hour after Trump was first pressed to take some sort of action, Trump finally let [n]Scavino[/b] post a message on Trump's Twitter account telling supporters to support law enforcement and "stay peaceful." It was 2:38 p.m
At least six of Trump's closest aides continued to push Trump to do something more forceful than posting what they saw as a weak message on Twitter, sources said.
Trump listened to the pleas, "but he was just not interested at that moment to put anything out," Scavino told Smith's team, according to the sources. Instead, Trump was focused on watching TV and taking in the chaotic scenes, Scavino said, the sources added.
Wow.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-couns … =106131854So Trump didn't even post that mild statement to support law enforcement and stay peaceful himself! What a coward! How disgusting!!
Valeant -- "Multiple personality", you say? Poor me...after over thousand non-fiction books on human nature, a diploma in psychotherapy, and 79 years of life experience, here, it took someone like you to diagnose me with a "multiple personality".
I guess, it would be too much to expect from you to recognize a sheer sarcasm in what I said. After my incomplete negative assessment of Tramp, you re-directed the detail of his mental issues towards me, which points at the familiar truism how selectively blind are brainwashed people. And I could easily write a book about all forms of suggestive strategies in politics.
However, there was even a dash of truth in what I said "while in an episode of a split personality".
Namely, it would be interesting to see how America would become great again by someone who once said how "Mexico was going to pay for the wall", how "hurricanes should be blasted by nukes", how "those infected by covid should be injected with detergents"...etc, and the story is really long pointing at a clear case of compulsive lying for sake of momentary effects.
By the way, between Trump and Biden, I wouldn't vote for either. I am a notorious political cynic after never having witnessed a considerable raise in prosperity markers for majorities with either of the parties in power.
So, don't label me as a "hateful Democrat". But O.K., you can always scoop into your extensive knowledge in psychology -- to give me some more names from that colorful assortment.Was that a diagnosis? I would think someone with over a thousand non-fiction books on human nature and a diploma in psychotherapy might know the difference between a joke to a third party and a diagnosis.
The critique of Trump in one post followed by the comment that you hoped he would be re-elected in the next was certainly from two ends of a spectrum. Sorry that you don't see the humor of someone pointing that out.This was my first introduction into this phenomena of how and why people become brainwashed. I have since read a few others that say roughly the same thing.
I shared it with the forum and got the expected push back, which only proves the point.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … s-00108378
Valeant -- You are doing it again -- redirecting. After I said how you couldn't recognize sarcasm -- there you go saying how I could not recognize a joke.
But, it's really way below my dignity to keep responding to these Trumpian tactics,
After all, this forum is not about you and me kicking the shit back and forth, we have to respect the topic at hand.
Besides, it is more than obvious than we are coming from some totally different intellectual tastes and that has to be respected as well.
So, I am done here.No redirection, just pointing out how you took a comment I made to a different user, one made in jest, and instead of laughing about it, seemed to get very defensive.
And if you thought that post about giving Trump a second term would be viewed as 'sarcasm,' it came off more as you looking willing to give him a second chance in the hopes that he had learned some lessons from the first try. Maybe I'm not the one struggling to understand how sarcasm works.
This makes for a fun read:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ … %20Pet.pdfChutkan and Smith swatted:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 159523007/Is the USA gearing up like this? I found it unusual, and terrible.
Thank you for presenting this article. It does prescribe a problem we have here in the US. Our citizens are divided, and yes many on both sides are angry. This form of anger is dangerous, and yes, certainly, some do not have the mechanisms or social skills to control their anger and become threatening.
Anger is a dangerous emotion, and it is very evident that many Americans are now feeling that emotion more frequently. It would seem either side is willing to set aside views to work on solutions to get along.Studies by law enforcement and others clearly show that in America, political violence, especially after Trump, is mainly a right-wing trait. There is no even split here. Probably closer to 80% Right-wing and 20% Left-wing.
"In contrast to the 1970s, much of today's political violence is aimed at people instead of property — and most of the recent deadly outbursts tracked by Reuters have come from the right. Case in point: the Trump supporter who shot a neighbor he suspected of being a Democrat."
"In contrast, much of today’s political violence is aimed at people – and most of the deadly outbursts tracked by Reuters have come from the right. Of the 14 fatal political attacks since the Capitol riot in which the perpetrator or suspect had a clear partisan leaning, 13 were right-wing assailants. One was on the left.
"Political violence surged for nearly a decade starting in the late-1960s – 1970 alone saw more than 450 cases, LaFree said. But it had become relatively rare by 1980. " - Mainly from the Left
And then MAGA came along and took over the Republican Party.
"Political violence started to climb again in 2016, LaFree added, and “it doesn’t seem like we’ve hit the top of the wave yet.” - NOW the violence is mainly from the Right and mainly MAGA.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … -violence/Thank you. It's interesting, and enlightening.
'It would seem either side is willing to set aside views to work on solutions...' Thank you. I had a crash in responding some hours ago. God save America!
This is a good (comical) view of how absurd things have gotten:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vExS5-nWQAY
Almost as absurd as Trump's lawyers arguing that Presidents can get away with murdering political rivals as long as they can avoid impeachment and conviction by the Senate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCOpKjwtKIkThis will be so interesting to see what the court rules.
I think they will carve out post-election actions as not covered by official duties. That's the issue that is relevant to this case. And what some noted conservatives wrote an amicus brief about.
I'll express my perspective on Trump's contention that he shouldn't be prosecuted for attempting to overturn the 2020 election and highlighting the potentially significant consequences of absolute presidential immunity. It is highly likely that this argument will not succeed in the Appeals court.
The notion that a president is immune to legal consequences could establish a precedent for presidential immunity from prosecution. This could lead to a future where presidents believe they can act outside the law without repercussions. Without legal mechanisms to prevent future presidents from lawbreaking, we might witness a scenario where a president exploits this privilege to avert the laws we as citizens must abide by. No one should be above the law, and all have the right to our legal system.
In my opinion, Trump is likely to lose this case, and even if he appeals to the Supreme Court, the chances of success seem slim.All one has to do is follow the money. Trum's lawyers must know better than to try to sell the courts on a "get out of jail free card", but there are people who will do and say anything for the right price. I hope they do get paid, "e.g," Rudy Guiliani.
At least one of his lawyers has said they know they will lose, they are just trying to postpone this thing until after the election which he thinks he will win. They he can simply tell DOJ to stop the prosecution and/or pardon himself.
On the Colorado thing, another Trump lawyer to Hannity that Trump won't lose that one because his thee appointments "owe him for their jobs".As I said, and this is just my view --- Trump will not win this one. I am just using logic. I do feel he will have the Colorado ruling canned by the Supreme Court. Not unanimous.
Will the Courts rule according to precedents, law, or opinions of amicus curea?
It is just sickening that Trump has reduced America to the point where a judge is having to ask his lawyer a hypothetical question regarding a president ordering Seal Team 6 to take out a political rival like his mentor in Russia does (except Putin would be asking команда печати шесть).
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/09/politics … index.htmlI'm not a lawyer. But I had enough legal knowledge to digest the argumentum ad hominum on both sides. The USA legal system theory of presidential immunity seems now a new thing to me. Does any past American president had immunity? Further, the argurments on the Judge's and prosecutions side seems evenly convincing. Smith was even amicusing. Critically, immunity in Nigerian Constitution, which is a carbon copy of both the British and American constitution, is still a thorn. I think the three Circuit Court judges will have a hard time to decide this dual case.
Save for Richard Nixon, no past Presidents have NEEDED to have immunity.
"Evenly convincing" - come on now, you are being sarcastic, aren't you?
Trump's case is so weak that I suspect a decision by the end of the week. Even his lawyer said they were going to lose because they had no case; they were just trying to buy time for Trump to become president and pardon himself.
There simply is no defense to wanting to be King and above the law.Yes, I agree to your last paragraphe. But how can a president pardon himself?
By simply doing it. There is not direct prohibition in the Constitution. If he does, you can bet the Supreme Court will get the case.
Here's something about the 14th, section 5 - that states Congress has the power to enforce the provisions on the amendment. Why would Congress be given the power to enforce the provision, and then section 3 then gives them the power to overrule their own decision by a two-thirds vote? Seems like the two-thirds vote was put in because they realized that other branches would be enforcing that section of the amendment.
The militant wing of MAGA is at it again. This time threatening to blow up the NY judge presiding over Trump's bank fraud trial.
Judge and his clerk have received hundreds of "serious and credible" threats over course of trial.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.html
Opinion: The fear of physical harm that keeps even Trump’s supporters in line
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/11/opinions … index.htmlMethink certain of these things are figment of the imaginations. They make things worst than the truth. And where are the truth?
But what can you provide to contest the information that ESO furnished, since you are so much in doubt as to its veracity?
But why did CNN said the opinion is that of the writer, and not of their own?
Because the CNN editorial staff may not agree with the opinion of the writer. But, because they are a fair network, they publish information from all viewpoints. CNN publishes opinion pieces from writers of all sorts of political view points. That is their job, to present as fair and unbiased information as they can. That is why you find a mixture of liberal and conservative opinions and/or analysis on their site. They want to present the whole picture, not just the one-sided offerings of lying Fox "News".
The first citing is just a recitation of facts.
The second citing is somebody's opinion on a subject. It may be biased as hell, or it might as easily be a rational presentation of logic and facts.In all fairness, I take these facts and opinions with a grain of salt.
That is your right. But, in terms of facts, it is always helpful to point out which ones you disagree with and offer supporting evidence as to why.
For instance, claims that Trump, and MAGA treating the life of a Judge and certain prominent individuals. And when the police arrived, they found it was swatting.
Swatting has proven to be very dangerous to those being swatted. Police have killed victims of swatting. Swatting is a major crime.
They brought up a good point in Congress today. Three years ago, Trump's lawyers argued that Congress was not the right venue for his crimes - it was the courts. Now, Trump's lawyers are arguing that because he was not convicted during his impeachment, that that was the only venue that should matter.
Basically, his lawyers argue that no venue is appropriate to judge the actions of their client. And MAGA really wants to get into a debate about who the dictator-wannabe really is?'Tensions at the border grow as the number of migrant apprehensions drops significantly"
Thank you President Biden!! MAGA Abbott needs to get a clue.
https://www.cnn.com/us/us-mexico-border … index.html"'That's leadership': Iowa voters react to Trump's comment on being a dictator"
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … rig-ht.cnnHere's a telling stat as to why Biden gets low polling marks:
Even during the Covid crash, when overall consumer confidence in the economy as measured by Civiqs plunged to -61% net good, Republican opinion was only in the low -20s. Under Biden, that plunged to the -80s, and is currently at -87% net good.
So views are being skewed much lower because of the MAGA effect, which lends them to be further towards the edges with their opinions based on their own partisanship.
The court sketch artist in New York summed it up perfectly...
What does it say about a person or group of people who would vote for a person with the following record?? To me, it says they lack judgement and have been brainwashed because no rational person would wants this charlatan as president.
* failed president who is responsible for over 100,000 needles deaths due to Covid.
* one-term,
* twice impeached (3 votes shy of being convicted),
* continually losing former president (Trump, if you didn't guess)
* who has been convicted in civil court of defamation, sexual battery, and persistent bank fraud and
* is four times indicted for
* 34 felony counts of New York Penal Law § 175.10: Falsifying business records in the first degree
* 2 felony counts (including one conspiracy count) of obstructing an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 |
* 1 felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 |
* 1 felony count of conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241][b]
* [b]32 felony counts of willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act |
* 6 felony counts of obstruction-related crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and 18 U.S.C. § 1519 |
* 2 felony counts of false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 AND
* 1 count of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act |
* 3 counts of solicitation of violation of oath by public officer |
* 1 count of conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer |
* 2 counts of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree |
* 2 counts of false statements and writings |
* 2 counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings |
* 1 count of filing false documents | 1 count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents AND on the Civil Side
* Lawsuits alleging 'incitement' on January 6 - House Democrats and two Capitol police officers accused Trump of inciting the violent mob on January 6.
* E. Jean Carroll's rape and defamation case against Trump. One suit is settled with Trump being found guilty of defamation and sexual battery and a different defamation suit still being tried.
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald- … tes-2022-7
IN ADDITION
Trump has been involved in 4,095 lawsuits in the last 30 years. 1,863 of them involved his many casino bankruptcies (he is clearly a failed businessman).
https://www.azcentral.com/pages/interac … -lawsuits/
He is one pathetic human being.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2 … cker-list/What does it take? Simple a look at how the other guy.
1. Senile
2. has the country been in two wars, going for three as I write
3. Pluged the nation into three years of inflation
4. Has opened our borders without thinking of who and how many he is admitting.
5. Is under investigation for bribery. A ploy to enrich himself as well as his family
6.OurWorldInData's figure for December 19 is slightly higher, putting the total at 806,439 deaths. Of those, 351,754 deaths occurred in 2020, meaning that indeed there more deaths—nearly 455,000—in 2021.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-hav … mp-1661528
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ … id-deaths/
Common sense says one should compare ---
1. So one must weigh senile or of sound mind
2 No wars versus two wars, and maybe more to come...
3. I great economy versus a bad economy
4. Borders under better control versus one out of control
5. A president who was exonerated twice when impeached or one that most likely will be found guilty
I was the president who did well in handling COVID, working hard to provide the country with vaccines, supplies, and a team (OWS) that was effective in helping get things done or one that was lacking in handling simply getting the vaccine out in a timely fashion and lacks in supplying testing kits early on, and was responsible for far more deaths.
Seems one only uses a bit of common sense when comparing Biden and Trump. It is evident most Americans are considering the job performance of the two --- the polls give good proof of that.I just don't understand why you keep publishing untruths.
* Biden IS NOT senile - that is just your opinion and not fact like mine are
* Biden DID NOT start two wars - that is just your opinion and not fact like mine are
* Biden DID NOT cause inflation - that is just your BDS showing while I present facts.
* Biden DID NOT open our borders - that is just your opinion and not fact like mine are.
* Biden IS NOT under investigation for bribery or anything else - what the House MAGA is doing is pure partisan politics. The charges against Trump that he has been found guilty of or under indictment were/are based of FACTS.
* I assume you mean deaths due to Covid - Again, your opinion and misuse of statistics. Biden saved lives with his Covid polices while Trump was responsible for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths that happened even into Biden's term. Biden just reduced that number that might otherwise have died because of Trump. Even those medical experts who worked for Trump agree.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/us/c … dates.html
"In a clip released earlier by CNN, Birx said the Trump administration could have prevented hundreds of thousands of Covid-19 deaths had it acted more forcefully to mitigate the pandemic.
"I look at it this way: The first time, we have an excuse. There were about 100,000 deaths that came from that original surge," Birx said. "All of the rest of them, in my mind, could have been mitigated or decreased substantially."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … d-n1262283
* Trump IS NOT of sound mind - that is your opinion, the facts tell a different story, at least that is what dozens of mental health experts say.
* Trump's economy was an extension of Obama's good economy, Trump didn't turn anything around like Biden did
* That was a FAUX exoneration (it actually wasn't an exoneration at all) because the Republican senators acted in a very partisan way and wouldn't listen to all the damning evidence against Trump. In fact, if the Constitution didn't say Trump could be prosecuted after his term was over, Mitch McConnell made it very clear he (and therefore many others) would have voted to convict.
McConnell said "“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,”
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics … index.html
"I was the president ..." - AND YOU believe a proven liar?? The only truth in your quote is he was responsible for getting vaccines (which he later rejected the use of) to the market.
Common sense is very clear - there is no comparison between a criminal like Trump and an honest man like Biden.
Once again, polls don't "prove" anything. They just show "opinion" at the time the polls are taken. All people who understand statistics like I do know that to be true.
FACTS MATTER to those who do not support Trump. They seem to be meaningless to those who do support Trump.In my view, he is senile. I did not say he started wars, just that we now find ourselves in two wars, and a third could be on its way. Many economists have shared views that Biden's decisions on spending have caused inflation. The borders are open to welcome any asylum claims 24/7. I have stated nothing but facts, besides my view on Biden's mentation.
I am thankful so many Americans have woken up to the many problems this man has caused. It is you that are twisting facts, on much of everything. However, you have a right to your thoughts.I agree, in your view he is. In my and most other people, he is not.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — To hear Donald Trump tell it, President Joe Biden is so senile that he doesn’t know where he’s speaking and feeble enough that others are making decisions for him.
Yet Trump has made notable flubs of his own. The former president mixed up the city and state where he was campaigning last weekend and had to be corrected by a local official. He recently called Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán the leader of Turkey and has repeatedly mispronounced the militant group Hamas as “hummus.”" - Now THAT is senile.
This is probably why you think Biden is senile - FAKE NEWS published by your favorite information sources - "In 2019, a manipulated video spread through social media platforms showing Joe Biden on stage telling an audience that he “shouldn’t be president”. Biden’s voice had been slowed down, giving the impression he was slurring his words, while footage from a real speech he gave at an Iowa university was edited to cut out context, splice together clips and make it seem like he was calling himself “Slow Joe Biden”." - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … p-campaign
If you would watch honest news, like CNN, you might have a different opinion.
Even France knows the "Biden senile" myth is just a right-wing hoax. - https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/tr … -as-senile
FACTS MATTER - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … oe-biden-/
"We find ourselves ..." - Does that mean that since we find ourselves confronted with devastating global warming that Biden caused that as well? In my opinion, these ad hominin attacks on Biden are just BDS and Biden Hatred.
FEW economists have shared views that Biden's decisions on spending have caused inflation. - and what reports are availbable (pointlessly shared before) say that what inflationary impact Biden may have had with his programs to SAVE AMERICA was small and transitory. - Here I will share it again, I hope you read it this time.
"As reported by David J. Lynch of The Washington Post, several economic studies conclude that as much as 3-4 percentage points of the recent increase in inflation is attributable to the legislation. But determining the plan’s impact on inflation is difficult to measure precisely because it hard to separate the effects of monetary policy and supply chain disruptions. Consequently, some studies show much smaller effects of the relief package on inflation.
By comparison, there is general agreement that the package speeded the recovery and contributed to record low unemployment. This raises another issue: Namely, why is the U.S. electorate quick to blame Biden for inflation but not give him credit for the economic recovery and low unemployment?"
I am not "twisting" anything, just presenting the facts (all the facts, btw) as they are.
"Many Americans are angry and blame Joe Biden for today’s high inflation. Indeed, polls show that many people plan to vote for Republicans in November because they’re upset with Biden over the economy. (Unfortunately, many Americans forget that there’s been more job growth – 10 million jobs – during Biden’s first 20 months in office than during any previous president’s first 20 months.)
For any American who is thinking of voting Republican out of anger about inflation, here’s some advice: look before you leap. "
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … -inflation
What facts have you presented? I don't see any, only your opinion apparently based on the right-wing false narrative.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … -inflation
Her own article calls out her partisan claim, as her data tries to give Biden credit for deaths that happened while Trump was still president in January of 2021. When you actually look at the data for when Biden took office, it looks like this:
'For the sake of simplicity we will choose January 20 as the dividing line.
On that day the cumulative U.S. COVID death count stood at 424,401, according to CDC data, meaning that fewer people have died under Biden—379,192 in total (up to December 19).
We call that gaslighting.
The U.S. is in two wars? When did Congress approve an act of war declaration? Can anyone tell us that? More gaslighting.
Plunged the nation into inflation? When will she acknowledge that inflation happened globally? Never, to gaslight people.
The investigation is an attempt to link his son's shady dealings to him, but has failed in every attempt for anyone who actually looks at the evidence. The fact that she had the nerve to say '{Biden} will most likely be found guilty' had to be the biggest gaslighting attempt in the history of these threads. Based on a complete lack of evidence, there is zero chance that they get two-thirds of the Senate to convict.
And I'll take senile over malignant narcissism any day."And I'll take senile over malignant narcissism of either a malevolent sociopath or a psychopath anyday.....
Also, consider the lag with any policy change and you can probably start counting deaths around Apr or May, 2021. Any deaths until then is on Trump.
Hunter is paying dearly for MAGA's hatred of Joe Biden. Even given he refused and then paid his taxes and that he turned his gun in MAGA won't treat him like a normal. A "normal" person without the last name of Biden and given the exact same set of circumstances wouldn't be facing trial for either crime.
No, MAGA wants their pound of flesh to make them feel better about backing such a PROVABLY disaster of a human being that Donald Trump is.
Sharlee, many people who have voted for Biden DEEPLY REGRET it now.
And the same can be said for Trump. He lost a nice chunk after January 6. And currently only has around 53% of the support for the nomination of his party - meaning close to half of the party is looking for another candidate.
And 25% think Trump has had a negative effect on the Republican party.
Basically that shows that 25% to 30% of the Republicans or Right-Leaning Independents haven't had their neural pathways altered by Trump's rhetoric turning them into cult like zombies.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … s-00108378
Yes, it appears they do... Hopefully, more will have a good look at the many problems Biden has caused, and vote Republican, no matter who they run.
Problem with that is, they don't have very many problems to look at.
More Republicans, and especially right-leaning Independents, will see how much of a criminal Trump is and how totally unfit he is for almost anything, let alone being president. He really belongs in a mental institution.
The MAGA mind-set: "Governor walks back suggestion that Texas would shoot migrants if it weren't illegal"
Is Abbott the leader of the MAGA military arm?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … ad-vpx.cnnA good name is better than silver and gold. And I'm wondering how Trump became president in spite of all the chains of evil associated with his name. Now that he's running for a second term, and ahead of every presidential candidate methink his enemies are digging into his past again, and to undermined his shoot ahead. Both Trump and Biden, as human beings can have similar faults if not parallel. And let's say Trump won the November election, in spite of his badness, and marvelously turns a new leaf? God save America!
They thought that about Trump in 2016 and he only got much worse. He weaponized much of the U.S. Gov't to attack his political enemies.
Money speaks, money acts. Trump is money?
It would seem this is an expected consequence from Trump's coup attempt.
Texas bars federal law enforcement from the border.
To me, that is real insurrection getting close to what South Carolina did when they attacked Fort Sumpter to start the Civil War. In my opinion, while Biden sues Texas, he ought to activate the Texas National Guard (so that Abbott can't use them anymore to attack America or block federal authorities) and send in the Army to bust through Abbott's fences and take back control of US territory from Texas.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/armed … &ei=35A video that highlights some in the GOP and how Trump has alienated them, even to the point they will cross over to vote for Biden instead of sitting it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IJjB-LhK10With all fair play on both sides, can the November election blow the final whistle? The thing is this: Trump is good. Trump is also bad. And Biden is good. Biden is also bad. Quo bono?
What is "good" about Trump? He even cheats on his wife.
No comparison with other American presidents?
Well, to be fair
We never have had a Former President will 91 criminal charges and 4 indictments, so let's not compare pineapples with hand grenades....Your response infer they're other American presidents that even cheat on their wife. They's are light crimes, but Trump's heavier? Let say two pieces of iron rods 91g and 9g respectively were drop into a swimming pool simultaneously. Both will hit the buttom of the pool. That's why Jesus refused to condemned the woman taken in adultery. Think. The pineapples and hand graneda analogy will fail. Pineapples are living things or bios. The grenada is an opposite. We're comparing two persons.
I think my analogy works just fine. It just goes to show how far you and Trumper types will go to attempt to make similar comparisons of two totally different things or circumstances. Your problem is that you fail to recognize that frequency and magnitude are factors in evaluating opposing sides and the circumstances surrounding them.
In this way you cannot make any reasonable comparison of Donald Trump with any prior American president. Such would be the equivalent to, what did I say? Pineapples vs hand grenades.
It is my irritation with conservatives who insist on making a single offense of one equavalent to the 99 of the same from the other.1,000,000,000,000 % AGREE!!!! (I think I have seen something like that before, lol.)
One billion % agree? I'm laughing. I've not come near that before!
No other American president that I know of has even been charged with a crime let alone one related to overthrowing the government as Trump has.
No other American president that I know of has ever been convicted of a crime after he leaves office. As a minimum, Trump has been found guilty of sexual battery, defamation, and bank fraud.
No other American president has been charged with paying hush money to a porn star to cover up an illicit affair.
No other president has ever asked a foreign nation to help him win an election.
You are right, there is no comparison with Trump and any other American president. Trump is in a corrupt league of his own.I focus only only the topic you raised cheating on a wife. I think other American presidents has attempted that or near to it.
That was just an example of one of the multitude of things wrong with Trump. He is a convicted sexual batterer and he cheats on his wife.
Who cares if other presidents cheated on their wives unless that is the only flaw you think Trump has?
BTW, what this "focus" on a single item out of a list of so many is one example of a logical fallacy (unless the claim is not true). Logical fallacies are often used to deflect from the real issue like was done here.I'm not logically falacing. I'm not deflecting on the real issue. You've again raise the inference that no one cares if other American presidents cheat they wives. Ex-President Trump wrong doing are many. I think the majority of them before he became president. Now, here is a question. Did Trump committed adultery while in the Oval Office? Is there any American president that did that? Think. Trump is being tried in the Courts for his many crimes. Let it be. God save America!
Trump damaged relations with our allies so bad the first time around, they are taking measures to protect themselves from him should lightening strike a second time.
I don't blame them for he is a living, breathing disaster for America and the rest of the world.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/14/world/eu … index.htmlThis is a bad sign for Trump from Iowa polling:
Eighteen percent of likely Republican caucusgoers say they consider themselves “ultra MAGA,” and 22% say they identify as “just regular MAGA” supporters. But another 38% say they have neutral feelings about the MAGA movement, and 17% say they are “anti-MAGA.”
Let's say half of those anti-MAGA's cross over or sit out. Losing close to 10% of the GOP base in an election that should be close, before even factoring in the pro-choice Republicans, is going to be devastating for them.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … r-AA1mZra2Washington — Former President Donald Trump's margin of victory in Monday's Iowa caucuses smashed the previous record for Republican presidential candidates, underscoring the broad support he attracted in the first contest of the 2024 nominating process.
Trump won the support of 51% of Iowa caucusgoers, a 30-point victory over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who came in second place with 21% of support. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley won 19% to come in third.
This is certainly a wonderful way to start.And here is the make-up of those who voted for Trump.
66% say Biden is NOT a legitimate president which speaks very poorly of their judgement and being grounded in reality.
63% say Trump is fit for office even if he is convicted of more crimes beyond the sexual battery, defamation, and bank fraud he has already been found guilty of by a jury and/or judge. What kind of an American wants a crook and con man as president???
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/conserv … =106395184Not convicted of crimes in the sexual abuse and defamation, or the bank fraud trial - found liable. Convictions are for criminal trials and each of the ones you listed were civil cases.
Conviction (from Oxford): a formal declaration that someone is guilty of a criminal offense, made by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law.
Note the words criminal offense in the dictionary definition. Then understand these were civil cases, not criminal cases.Yes, I am aware of the "technical" difference in the terminology but I can't pretend that "being found liable" for sexual battery is not a crime. To me, to say it is not is an insult to victims of sexual battery. Consequently, I label it for what it really is.
I will grant that one of the three is probably not a crime in some states and that is the defamation conviction.
Trump was found "liable" for the crimes of sexual battery (one judge said that was effectively rape), fraud, and defamation, at least by this definition
- "noun
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law."
Two of those offenses are crimes subject to criminal punishment (even though he wasn't tried criminally) and the third is a crime as well in some states. The fact that Trump was not tried criminally (he is for the fraud in another NY criminal case) is beside the point, in my opinion.
If Trump shot somebody on 5th Ave, not in self-defense) and was not tried would you be saying he didn't commit a crime?'Yes, I am aware of the "technical" difference in the terminology but I can't pretend that "being found liable" for sexual battery is not a crime.'
Then say something like, 'a jury of his peers determined he did the crimes of sexual abuse and defamation and is liable for those actions.'
'Trump was found "liable" for the crimes of sexual battery (one judge said that was effectively rape), fraud, and defamation, ...' No, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse, not battery. Which, as you note, is New York's polite way of saying rape when it could not be determined whether it was with fingers or something else.
In a criminal trial, the rules of evidence is different, so the fact that you don't see the difference is far from beside the point. And if Trump shot someone on 5th avenue, yes, it would take a trial to determine if he committed a crime. Just as with Kyle Rittenhouse. I initially had the impression that he committed a crime, until I heard actually testimony and came to an easy conclusion that he acted in self-defense based on the evidence that had not been available in the media.
With only 15 percent of eligible Republicans in the state participating, I would not call Trump's win either definitive nor representative.
Worse yet for Trump - "Since the caucuses began in 1972, there have been 18 caucus winners between the two parties: 10 Democrats and 8 Republicans. Over half of those winners went on to secure their party's nomination in that cycle, but only three would be elected president."
If I were running for President, I would stay far, far away from Iowa, lol I would start with New Hampshire which does a much better job of predicting the eventual winner. From 1900 - 2020, 81% of the winners went on to be president. It gets worse in modern times - from 2000 to 2020, 67% went on to win in the general.Bottom line --- My view, remains positive. In my view, I found it a remarkable achievement that former President Donald Trump secured an unprecedented victory in the Iowa caucuses on Monday, showcasing his strong influence on the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Despite the challenges of the lowest-turnout caucus in 25 years, participants displayed resilience, braving severe cold and hazardous driving conditions to gather in numerous schools, churches, and community centers statewide. Those who ventured out contributed to Trump's impressive approximately 30-point win, setting a NEW RECORD for a contested Iowa Republican caucus and surpassing Bob Dole's significant victory margin of nearly 13 percentage points in 1988.
Seems the weather may have affected the turnout, yet he broke a record, I don't think one should overlook that fact. I think he will be hard to beat.
Politico agrees this was a record (one that won't be repeated in New Hampshire) but it also noted these disturbing findings:
- He may have won 51% of the vote but 49% of Republicans in Iowa rejected him; many of whom won't vote for him in the general election just like they didn't in 2020.
- He showed significant weakness in Urban and Suburban precincts; places where Republicans have done poorly since 2016.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/1 … s-00135949
It also speaks poorly of the 51% who did vote for him because it shows a serious lack of judgement when they declared they want a failed president who lasted only one term; lost by 7 million votes in 2020; been twice impeached; was just three votes shy of being convicted in the Senate on insurrection; been found to have engaged in insurrection by several judges; been found liable for the crimes of sexual battery, defamation, and bank fraud; facing FOUR criminal indictments with 91 felony counts; and facing state criminal charges of fraud. There is more, but you get the point.On top of that, the last Republican 'incumbent' to run in the Iowa Republican caucuses prior to Trump was George W. Bush in 2004, and he won Iowa with 98.6% of the vote, with three other candidates garnering less than 2% of the vote. 51% isn't the flex that people think it is for someone who was previously a president and was their incumbent in 2020, winning 97% of the vote in that year.
3 million 2016
7 million 2020
? million more Americans will vote against him in 2024?The Military Wing of MAGA apparently threatens to assassinate two prominent Democrats
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … tm-vpx.cnnTrump is bringing back the discredited Eugenics movement into American politics.
Trump, in stoking support for his anti-immigration agenda, has brought that now thoroughly discredited racist thinking to play in the 21st century. In his victory speech after the Iowa caucuses on Monday night, the eugenicist slur that immigrants from some countries were innately inferior reverberated anew in his remarks. He went beyond his standard denunciation that the “invasion of millions and millions of people” at the southern border is filled with criminals, also claiming that “they’re coming from mental institutions and insane asylums. They’re being emptied out into our country.” (and Trump supporters love it, how Sick is that?)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/16/opinions … index.htmlReferring to concepts like "eugenics" appears exaggerated. While I acknowledge that it has become part of the left media's discourse, is it prudent to employ such rhetoric? In my perspective, the analogy they are attempting to emphasize might only resonate with those who are less discerning.
I only know of several US presidents who fully outwardly supported the Eugenics movement. One that comes to mind, is Democratic President Woodrow Wilson.
The life of American President Woodrow Wilson was reviewed, focusing on the influence of Darwinism and Wilson’s acceptance of a racist-eugenics worldview. This worldview resulted in Wilson’s aggressive attempt to resegregate the federal bureaucracy based on race. Likewise, when president of Princeton University, Wilson did everything in his power to block Blacks from attending Princeton. Wilson’s policies were based on his belief in the evolutionary inferiority of Blacks. This belief was a factor in causing the violent race riots that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and caused many millions of dollars in damage. Gosh, our history shows only Democrats as well as Republicans as well as American socialists supported the Eugenics movement.
Surprised you would bring this up. Trump certainly in no respect supports racism of any kind. He supports coming into America legally, and that all that approach our border be vetted. In my view a much better solution. The Biden administration has returned to catch and release.
They have lost 85,000 unaccompanied children and have no idea how many gotaways have entered. There has been an increase in Terrorist apprehended at our border, and Wray has warned --FBI DIRECTOR WRAY CONFIRMS THE BORDER CRISIS POSES MAJOR HOMELAND SECURITY THREAT
https://homeland.house.gov/2023/11/15/f … tonewalls/
Trump did have the border under better control, and the numbers that he admitted to waiting for hearings show this. I have good faith that if Trump wins he will get control of the border, hopefully close it for a period to handle the millions Biden let in. Trump certainly is running on fixing the border. Polls show all Americans want our border solutions.
I support legal immigration on a need basis. We need workers, we don't need millions of non-skilled workers.I too support legal immigration on a need basis, in very limited amounts.
But I do not support being a dumping ground for all those that cannot be cared for in their own country. The sick, the ill, the pregnant, the mental cases. We are not the "go to" place for abused children (either intentionally or unintentionally). We are not the Emergency Room for the world.
If that means I an a "eugenicist" then so be it. I will stick to not accepting and trying to cure all the ills this vicious world heaps on it's inhabitants.I completely agree with your sentiment. It's essential not to become a catch-all for individuals who cannot be cared for in their own countries, encompassing the sick, the ill, the pregnant, and those facing mental health challenges. We shouldn't position ourselves as the default destination for abused children, whether intentionally or unintentionally. (take my word as a nurse, we have plenty of abused American children who need our help) We are not the global Emergency Room. If being cautious about this makes me labeled as a "eugenicist," then I too stand firm in not accepting and attempting to address all the burdens this harsh world imposes on its inhabitants.
At this point, I really can't imagine the final number of illegal migrants that will enter under Biden, let alone 4 more years of this man.The problem with your position is America being an Emergency Room is just a CON that Trump has got you believing. IT IS NOT TRUE.
It's a big world --- and I don't consider America need be the savior of all... I find that a very flighty goal, of the very fluffy-minded. We have enough Americans to car for that fall through all the many cracks in society. I am for helping America at this point...
I got to say Wilderness, had you been in charge in the 1800s and early 1900s, America would be woefully behind the rest of the world economically. It was immigrants of all sorts that made America great, not the native born.
I suspect you would have given the Statue of Liberty back to France.It is only white folks that are so terrorized at immigration right in line with "the Great Replacement Theory" that so many of them, deep down, subscribe to, this is where Trump manages to get and maintain so much of his momentum. After all, only white folks vote for him in overwhelming numbers, can I wonder why? Tucker says allowing these in will increase Democratic votes. Well, I can read in between the line and the demographics of Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities show a preference for Democrats, are we part of the "Replacement" that Tucker does not want to cross the line and mention?
Conservatives irritate me with their smoke and mirrors to assume that I am so naive as not to see clearly what their agenda in this matter is all about,That's fair. So is that Liberals irritate me with their refusal to look beyond tomorrow at what their policies lead to in the long run.
"Conservatives irritate me with their smoke and mirrors to assume that I am so naive as not to see clearly what their agenda in this matter is all about,"
At this point, we have one reference to what Blacks and Hispanics are feeling --- that would be polls, not just views of talking heads. Polls do indicate that these minorities are drawing away from demacrats. However, I would think the proof with be in the final results in 2024.I sort of knew that I would ruffle a few feathers with this comment.
Polls have proven to be inaccurate consistently. I have been hearing this stuff about Blacks deserting the Democratic Party for years. Republicans have trotted out the Candice Owens, Dr. Sowell, etc. Our group's affinity for the Democrats remain basically unchanged. The "polls" have proven often times to be fraught with political bias. So, the only real poll that matters is the one on Election Day and so far all of this talk about Blacks change of loyalties has yet to actually occur. The only real danger for Biden is apathy at the voting booth for Biden and the Democrats, it is certainly not that they would invite the enemy into the fold, by voting for Republicans.
So many seem to carefully avoid answering my question. In the face of so loathsome a right wing conspiracy theory like the "Great Replacement" that slick presenters like Carlson brings into the comforting mainstream of Republican politics, and "polls" indicate that among Republicans the ideas are quite entrenched, why would I vote for them?
Carlson makes it all seem so innocuous when he is basically saying that whites in the standpoint of status, politics and economics are in danger of being replaced by non-whites. Is that not a cause for alarm amongst your group? Why would I vote for a party that embraces such ideas? It has to be no wonder that MAGA is predominantly an Anglo phenomenon.
There is nothing about Biden or the Democrats that presents a greater threat to me than this.It's evident that polls have consistently shown inaccuracy. Acknowledging this, I mentioned that, at this point, polls are my sole source offering insight on the issue. However, I emphasized that the true numbers, especially concerning the black and Hispanic vote, will only be known after the 2024 election.
In terms of my perspective, I maintain the belief that a majority of Black citizens are likely to remain loyal to the Democratic party, while Hispanics may lean more Republican due to shared values.
On the topic of Tucker Carlson, I express uncertainty about his influence among Republicans. His hyperbolic style, in my view, might not resonate well with the Republican base, though I can't say for certain what his intentions are.
I acknowledge your decision regarding your vote and assume you've carefully considered it. While not entirely surprised, I must say I am a bit surprised.
Perhaps so. But you would have made America into just another third world country, unable to feed themselves.
No, I would have made America exactly what it is today (minus the conservative xenophobia) because I believe in the humanism embedded in the Statue of Liberty's motto.
Unfortunately, you are thinking our workforce is as it was 100 years ago, when a "strong back and weak mind" was all that was needed.
Our country has changed, and workers today are nearly all highly skilled and trained. Those that are not are not making a living.
Yet those that are NOT skilled or trained are exactly what you would bring into the country. They can perform very little work available, and what they can do will not earn them a living.
PEW Research: After rising for many years, the number of unauthorized immigrants peaked at more than 12 million in 2007, the first year of the Great Recession. The total declined after that and the 2016 total was the lowest since 2004. By contrast, the number of legal U.S. immigrants has continued to rise.
Interesting considering that every estimate I've seen puts their numbers at over 20 million in the country. It has most definitely NOT fallen since 2016.
What HAS changed is that we declared that if they can utter the magic word ("asylum") they are suddenly legal, and thus the numbers of illegal aliens in the country falls.Obviously, that is your opinion and not fact. The FACTS are that immigration fell in Jan 2016, the last year of Obama, and Jan 2017, the first year of Trump. It was flat in Jan 2018, the second year of Trump and rose in 2019, the third year of Trump. Then COVID took over and it fell a lot by Jan 2021. Under Biden, it has risen to the levels Trump left it in 2019. In fact, in Feb 2022, the level of unauthorized immigrants in this country was slightly less that what it was in Jan 2019.
https://cis.org/Report/Estimating-Illeg … ion-SurveyImmigration, as in taking the test and becoming a citizen of the US, or "immigration" as in crossing the border at night and living illegally, driving illegally, working illegally, etc.?
Because if the second, it is odd that is has fallen while setting almost monthly records.Read the link and them comment or call the CIS liars.
You missed a group, btw. Those that cross the border during the day, mainly at ports of entry, with the PURPOSE of turning themselves into the border patrol. You know, the way the VAST majority of undocumented enter America.Yeah, I get that, too. They've been taught the magic word and Biden pushes for ever more of them.
But they don't have the skills to work jobs here, either. We can only use so many grass cutters and ditch diggers - the 20 million here already fill those jobs.Actually, Biden's policies - as has been given to you MANY times - discourage migrants from coming to the border.
It is Republicans who are encouraging migrants to come to the border with your lies that it is open.
The border is a Republican problem, not a Democratic one because Democrats have been pushing for a solution for decades only to be shot down by Republicans. PROOF of that claim has been provided to you many times previously.
And in the latest omission, we have this one:
The United States Border Patrol used to measure “apprehensions” and “expulsions” as separate figures until February 2020. Starting from March 2020, the Border Patrol changed its methodology to include counts for both apprehensions and expulsions as “encounters.”
Any chance this change is the reason for the inflated numbers?
It is Trump who is driving that comparison. If he would stop such language, then people wouldn't point out what it is.
You may support legal immigration but your former president does not. Immigrants poison our blood, don't you know.
BTW, it was COVID that had our borders under control although I guess separating babies from the mothers as punishment for seeking asylum did have some effect.
Also, if Conservatives would stop inviting immigrants to cross the border by lying about it being open, Biden would have better numbers.
Now THAT is an appropriate use of polls when they show what Americans Preferences are.
First, most of the adults who seek asylum ARE SKILLED workers, I proved that to you previously. Second, America NEEDS Unskilled workers as well. Without both, are economy will collapse."First, most of the adults who seek asylum ARE SKILLED workers"
LOL Skilled at what? Scavenging for food? How many are welders, skilled in the techniques used here? How many know, understand and can use the techniques in simply building a house here? How many are heavy equipment operators?
C'mon, Eso; precious few of these people can step into a skilled job category anywhere in this country and you know it.Skilled at what. you ask? If you would read my links, you would know.
Wilderness:
Then why are conservatives so concerned they are going to take away their jobs? The reality is they do jobs that most of those who claim that they are taking their jobs are doing working for them; like hotel maids, car washers, working in the fields picking vegetables, and fruits. It's because they are cheap labor and those who bitch and complain wouldn't think of doing those jobs for what they get paid.
Eso is right, it is a division of labor and has a great effect on our economy and even are well being. Just think of what you and others call Americans had to do those jobs. The prices would go sky high..I think you need to have a look at what professions the greater majority of migrants are taking jobs. I think you are considering a long-ago view on the folks that are coming into America. Yet, we do need them our workforce in these professional jobs. Our children just don't seem to be qualified to fill them. We only need so many unskilled people to fill unskilled jobs. We have an abundance at this point.
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-ind … million%20(11.7%25).In my view - In addressing the current challenges at the border, it appears that a rational and logical approach should be prioritized.
Consider the idea that migrants bring valuable contributions to our workforce beyond just unskilled labor. It's important to reevaluate the outdated notion that migrants are primarily suited for low-skilled jobs. The reality is that many migrants are actively contributing to professional fields that play a crucial role in our society. It's essential to update our perspective on the roles migrants play in the American workforce, recognizing their presence and impact in professional jobs where our domestic workforce may have gaps in qualifications. We need qualified workers in highly professional fields. It well appears companies are bringing on workers from many other nations to fill positions.
Focusing solely on unskilled jobs oversimplifies the diverse skills and expertise that migrants bring, addressing the broader spectrum of opportunities within the professional sector. One must also consider when discussing to many million that have entered in the past three years, we may not need so many unskilled workers. This could be detrimental to our Nation in many ways.
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-ind … million%20(11.7%25).
Is it not more prudent to grant citizenship to individuals possessing essential job skills? With a significant number of Americans already struggling with poverty, should we not carefully consider the potential impact of welcoming more individuals and the potential strain on our resources? While it may seem like a sobering statement, the question raised prompts a logical examination of the balance between addressing workforce needs and ensuring the well-being of our existing population.Thank you, that is an analysis I can absolutely agree with.
In my view, the "problem" at the border isn't the number of people wanting to cross, it is the lack of resources to process them in a timely fashion.
America, if it is to survive economically in the long-run, needs all those people, even the unskilled ones. Without them, unless native born start have a whole lot more babies, America will stagnate and fall behind the rest of the world."Is it not more prudent to grant citizenship to individuals possessing essential job skills?"
That would depend on the job skill. If it is mowing lawns then no. The unskilled jobs do not pay that "living wage" so talked about, which means that the taxpayer must make up the difference. If you add in public services such as police, fire, schools, etc. then the amount the taxpayer is on the hook for is even greater.
If, on the other hand, it is truly a skilled job such as nuclear engineer or even a plumber, these jobs DO provide enough to live on and support a family. But illegals crossing the border at night do not have these skills.I think if we need tech people and can't fill the jobs, I say let's invite people from other countries to fill those jobs. I say if we need jobs that are unskilled and not being filled, let's have those jobs filled by people from other countries. I also said that one must consider when discussing to many millions have entered in the past three years, we may not need so many unskilled workers. This could be detrimental to our Nation in many ways. Is it not more prudent to grant citizenship to individuals possessing essential job skills?
So, While it may seem like a sobering statement, the question raised prompts a logical examination of the balance between addressing workforce needs and ensuring the well-being of our existing population.
We pretty much agree... I feel all migrants should be vetted for what they can offer to our workforce. We have enough of our own who live in poverty, we need no more. However, we do need people many STEM workers, got a feeling since the borers were left open, we just don't need any more unskilled workers.
Sharlee: Your article talks about immigrants and immigration. Immigrants can be highly skilled and educated. There is a difference between immigrants and migrant workers.
Migrant workers are unskilled labor that comes here to usually take low paying temporary jobs and work the fields of agriculture and other unskilled jobs . They migrate from one job to another based on the seasons. They have no benefits and are usually living and working off the grid.Migrant Definition -- a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions.
I do not have a problem looking at all as human beings who hope to come and find work in America as migrants-- be it as a gardener or as
a software developer. You have ignored all of my lengthy views on the subject of the need for migrant workers and made a comparison between the two words. Yes, my article may have immigrants. This indicates jobs that are being filled by people who come to work and have a better life.
I missed one part of your comment that I do disagree with (which your link doesn't address) and it is " One must also consider when discussing to many million that have entered in the past three years, we may not need so many unskilled workers. This could be detrimental to our Nation in many ways."
First, by unfairly limiting your count to "the past three years" you imply that the undocumented that crossed the border during Trump's term (or Obama's or Bush II's or Clinton's or Bush i's, or Reagan's or ...) were not "detrimental to our nation in many ways". This, obviously, is not true.
Second, to the extent that 1) we are talking about the vast, vast majority of the unskilled who are honest people and 2) America is in need of more people to grow it would be very hard to see how they could be a "detriment".
At the this moment in time, and for the last many years, almost all unskilled workers would be able to find a job - IF they were allowed to. Unfortunately, Republicans are blocking Democratic efforts to all work permits to be issued to those waiting to be processed.
Also, it is VERY apparent that the House Republicans do not want to solve the crisis at the border. Why? Because it is too good of an issue to keep their xenophobic base riled up and going to the voting booth. Why else would MAGA Johnson say whatever bipartisan deal comes out of the Senate is DOA in the House.I don't think the House wants to deal with the border with bandaids. I think that's why we have seen no movement. Plus, and just my view, they pretty well know it might be a great stick to beat Biden within the 2024 election. I think the Republicans are pretty much starting to fight as dirty as I feel the Democrats have for many years. No going back at this point. They will certainly keep this attitude, they want to win in 2024.
My article was long, but it gave a good look at some current as well as past problems regarding the border. Though it is to be unbiased. I don't think decades ago the presidents had to deal with what Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden had on their plates.
I hope that we see new immigration laws that call for better types of vetting regarding America's needs for workers, skilled and non-skilled. I have mentioned my son has a rather large Software company. He employs hundreds of workers from many nations, due to not being able to fill positions with Americans. He has certainly tried and continues to try. However, he tells me the workers he has working on green cards, are so well-educated, and conscientious about work ethics that they would find them hard to replace. Many are waiting, and have been waiting for many years to become citizens here in America. We certainly need to fill jobs. I feel we need to do this by some form of merit program. I also think a cap on asylum seekers is necessary at this point due to having so many migrants entering in the past decade. It would seem a simple solution to put in place while we take care of the backlog of migrants on the current books.Leading Senate Republicans are warning their House colleagues not to play political games with the current immigration negotiations because they won’t get a better deal down the road under a potential second Donald Trump presidency.
“To those who think that if President Trump wins, which I hope he does, that we can get a better deal — you won’t,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters Wednesday. “You got to get 60 votes in the United States Senate.”
The House is hostage to MAGA.
“To my Republican friends: To get this kind of border security without granting a pathway to citizenship is really unheard of. So if you think you’re going to get a better deal next time, in ’25, if President Trump’s president, Democrats will be expecting a pathway to citizenship for that,” he said. “So to my Republican colleagues, this is a historic moment to reform the border.”
Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., echoed Graham's view.
“The Democrats will not give us anything close to this if we have to get 60 votes in the United States Senate in a Republican majority,” Thune said. “We have a unique opportunity here. And the timing is right to do this.”
If MAGA gets out of the way this will be the most significant piece of immigration legislation in decades. But speaker Johnson went on Fox and stated that he regularly speaks with Trump who wants the deal tanked. Go figure, I thought the border was important? And this from the least productive house in history.
I think this legislation will go through and it'll be a major accomplishment for Biden.
It would seem the handing Putin Ukraine is more important to MAGA than dealing with our own border.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … rcna134348Truth be told, neither House nor Senate, neither Democrat nor Republican, is truly interested in re-working our immigration/border policy in the interests of the country. Far too many dollars and votes are tied into the system as it is. On top of that, far too many deny the harm that is being caused by the virtually unlimited "immigration" we are currently seeing.
Don't hold your breathe for any meaningful change. It isn't going to happen, not with the concept of "politician" alive and well in this country today.Again, a false claim. Democrats for sure and a handful of Republicans who actually care about America have been trying for years to get comprehensive immigration reform passed. Every time they get close, the House Republicans kill it. Not the House Democrats, mind you, ONLY the House Republicans.
Hello Willow, welcome aboard! I find myself quite perturbed by the current state of affairs in Washington. In my observation, both sides seem to have faltered in effective governance, particularly in the past decade, with an escalation under the Biden administration. It feels like we're witnessing an intensification of dirty politics.
In my opinion, it's time to acknowledge the need for a significant change. Initiating this process with the introduction of two new candidates in the 2024 election is crucial. Presently, I'm pessimistic about bridging the great divide and steering the country back on the right track. A substantial shake-up is imperative; our Congress is overburdened with long-standing old politicians, and injecting new, younger perspectives is vital, in my view.
The question arises - what does it signify about America when we struggle to identify two younger, more intelligent candidates? At this juncture, I find myself throwing my hands up in the air in frustration.Actually, Biden and the Democrats and a handful of Republicans who actually cares about America has had the most successful domestic program in many, many years. Biden has done a wonderful job getting that handful of caring Republicans and Democrats together to pass meaningful legislation. Obviously you have forgotten what that is; I will list them for you again:
* Lowering Costs of Families’ Everyday Expenses - Inflation Reduction Act
* More People Are Working Than At Any Point in American History - FACT
* Making More in America - The CHIPs and Science Act
* Rescued the Economy and Changed the Course of the Pandemic - The American Rescue Plan
* Rebuilding our Infrastructure - The Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Act
* Historic Expansion of Benefits and Services for Toxic Exposed Veterans - [The PACT Act[/b]
* The First Meaningful Gun Violence Reduction Legislation in 30 Years - The Bi-Partisan Safer Communities Act
* Protected Marriage for LGBTQI+ and Interracial Couples - The Respect for Marriage Act
* Historic Confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Federal Judges of Diverse Backgrounds
* [b\Rallied the World to Support Ukraine in Response to Putin’s Aggression[/b]
* Strengthened Alliances and Partnerships to Deliver for the American People - FACT
* Successful Counterterrorism Missions Against the Leaders of Al Qaeda and ISIS - FACT
* Executive Orders Protecting Reproductive Rights
* Historic Student Debt Relief for Middle- and Working-Class Families - IN SPITE of Republican opposition to Working-Class Families
* Ending our Failed Approach to Marijuana - Executive Order
* Advancing Equity and Racial Justice, Including Historic Criminal Justice Reform
* Delivering on the Most Aggressive Climate and Environmental Justice Agenda in American History
* More People with Health Insurance Than Ever Before - FACT and Republicans just HATE it.
I agree that Trump is not intelligent (just street smart like a gang leader), but Biden is highly intelligent and shows it every day.
The House would rather maintain the status quo at the border (or make it worse if they can). The Senate will have a bi-partisan (sorry for swearing) compromise available shortly but the MAGA children in the House want the WHOLE PIE or No Pie at All. And truth be told, they want no pie at all for purely political reasons.
Did you see where MTG is now threatening kick Johnson out of the Speakership?
BTW, nobody has fought dirtier than Republicans. The best example is when McConnell unconstitutionally refused to let Obama nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court. A nice example of our unAmericanism.You said "I hope that we see new immigration laws that call for better types of vetting regarding America's needs for workers, skilled and non-skilled. "
I say, don't hold your breath. Twice we have had just what you are asking for, once in 2013 and again probably next week. And Twice the House Republicans refused to even bring it for a vote. (I assume Johnson will do what he has promised and not bring it to a vote.)
Why are Republicans clearly against fixing the border? Why do Republicans keep lying about the border being open by policy which invites all those immigrants to come to America?
This is a Republican problem.I believe there are two primary reasons why Republicans are hesitant to consider the bills proposed by President Biden. Firstly, it seems that the bills lack provisions to address the issue of controlling the influx effectively. There are no substantial changes regarding annual quotas for asylum seekers, and the vetting procedures remain largely unchanged. While funds are requested to expedite the border processing, some view this as an additional incentive for migrants to approach the borders and seek asylum. I recommend reading the bill from the early days of his presidency with an open mind.
Secondly, in my clear view, Republicans are strategically using the border situation as a substantial criticism against Biden, potentially for political gain in the 2024 elections.
What we truly need is a comprehensive bill that can genuinely control the yearly intake of migrants. This approach would help manage the flow while still providing a pathway for asylum seekers. There is a demand for workers, and we can implement effective vetting processes to ensure that those entering contribute positively to our workforce.You said "Firstly, it seems that the bills lack provisions to address the issue of controlling the influx effectively."
I note that Senate Republicans seem to think the legislation is effective. What is wrong with the House that they can't see this?
You wrote "There are no substantial changes regarding annual quotas for asylum seekers, and the vetting procedures remain largely unchanged."
I note that Senate Republicans seem to find the legislation meets their needs. Why don't House MAGA? Politics maybe?
You wrote "While funds are requested to expedite the border processing, some view this as an additional incentive for migrants to approach the borders and seek asylum. "
I note that House Republicans have been screaming for more money for the border and now they don't want it and say it will incentivize more immigrants??? I don't get what their problem is. Politics maybe?? In reality, what incentivizes them are MAGA constantly lying about the border being open.
You wrote "What we truly need is a comprehensive bill that can genuinely control the yearly intake of migrants. "
I note again that we had that in 2013 and the House Republicans stuck their nose up at it and wouldn't bring it to the floor. In 2024, we have another that Senate Republicans are satisfied but the House Republicans have their noses up in the air once more. What's up with that? Probably politics.
It should be very obvious now that it is MAGA Republicans who are causing the problems at the border.
You said "However, he tells me the workers he has working on green cards, are so well-educated, and conscientious about work ethics that they would find them hard to replace. "
I say that many studies back that up regarding undocumented immigrants as well or those here on U Visas.
"Then why are conservatives so concerned they are going to take away their jobs?"
Because we will feed them, clothe them, house them, provide them with health care, etc. and THEN educate them and teach them skills to take the jobs. In addition we will educate their children until they are old enough to take jobs.
Note that none of the jobs you list will support a family (or an individual, for that matter)...meaning we must still provide their support while working.And even with all that, they contribute more to American society than they take - so says a bunch of studies I have provided you that were obviously ignored.
Trying to convince people the opposite is true is just propagating a conservative myth.Many migrant workers come here and work the fields to earn enough money to send back to their families in their countries in order to support them. They migrate from job to job depending on the seasons, that's why they are called migrant workers.
They live off the grid and get no benefits from the people they work for and they are usually paid in cash, under the table. We simply don't support them. Please give me evidence to show how we support them.
With a name like wilderness, you probably live in the woods and are not aware of how our system of unskilled labor really works.
I live in Southern California. As a teenager, my first job was picking onions with the migrant families for 50 cents a gunny sack. They are very hard working families. I simply don't believe Trump's propaganda.Except no one is talking about migrant workers working legally with a green card, now are they. The discussion is about illegal aliens crossing the border in violation of our laws.
The rate of migrants crossing the border is now topping 300k a month.
These are not people coming to "work the fields". They are coming because America is offering economic relief, providing more per month to them than the average retired person gets from SS, as well as providing other government resources for food and healthcare.
This is all established in the many Agreements such as the Global Compact on Migration that was championed during the tail end of the Obama Administration and then signed back onto as soon as Biden was elected.
Look, the Biden Administration doesn't come out and tell the American people they are supporting not only Open Borders, but the facilitating of migrants getting here, but they most certainly are.
Its one of their many duplicitous efforts that work against the best interests of Americans... like giving Iran hundreds of billions of dollars when they know Iran will use that money to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc. the Biden Administration says they are working to solve the problems... all the while they are using hundreds of billions of America's borrowed money to fund terrorists in the Middle East, to fund the escalating war with Russia, and to fund the continued escalation of migrants reaching our borders.You say " They are coming because America is offering economic relief, providing more per month to them than the average retired person gets from SS, as well as providing other government resources for food and healthcare."
Where is your proof of those wild claims?? I have given you plenty of proof to the contrary which you apparently refuse to read or believe because the facts they offer contradicts your personal opinion.I see that no Proof was forthcoming which means those claims were False.
You make the false claim "like giving Iran hundreds of billions of dollars when they know Iran will use that money to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc. t"
Where is your proof of this wild claim? I and others have provided you plenty of proof earlier. You apparently refuse to read it or believe the FACTS the links offer because they contradict the conspiracy theories you personally believe in.I don't know that Biden is actually "duplicitous" - he isn't smart enough (or willing) to look beyond today. Few liberals look beyond drying their tears today over the plight of people throughout the world, demanding that we support them today. The coming decades will surely be rosy if we just throw a few billion to the poor through the world and invite them to come live with us.
And there you describe the difference of approach. Liberals care about the people around them and Conservatives don't care about anybody beyond their nose.
Hey Ken, I think this will shortly be coming to a "head"... I mean, inflation will rise with ships being diverted from the Red Sea routes. And Iran is going to continue to turn the knife. I think we are in for a very bumpy ride this year.
Although, could not happen at a better time, so to say... My God, who the hell is making these crazy dissions? In your view.Would Iran, Hamas, and the Houthis be your answer?
Not sure what you are getting at. I feel the weak stance the Biden administration has adopted has more or less provided these thugs to pretty much be in charge of the Red Sea. A day or so ago, China announced their exports have and will now be slowed due to losing the Red Sea as a reliable route.
"The Red Sea disruptions are unraveling the intricacies of China's export-dependent economy, highlighting vulnerabilities to supply chain interruptions and external shocks. Premier Li Qiang, speaking at the World Economic Forum, stressed the importance of maintaining "stable and smooth" global supply chains" https://www.wionews.com/business-econom … ort-681462
In my view, we will see snowballing economic problems due to not keeping the Red Sea a viable route for exports.You wrote "I feel the weak stance the Biden administration has adopted has more or less provided these thugs to pretty much be in charge of the Red Sea. "
I ask "what exactly is "weak" about Biden's response to the Houthis? Was it shooting all the ballistic missiles they launched that was weak? Maybe it was sinking three Houthis' boats, killing all aboard that was weak? Maybe it is the multiple attacks on Houthis' infrastructure that was weak?"
Maybe a "strong" reaction would have been to nuke the Houthis?
Wilderness: What makes you think they come here, have green cards and work legally? It's cheaper labor costs if they work here Illegally.
But a good number ARE here, and working, legally. As Shar pointed out many companies actively search worldwide for competent, skilled employees. As she points out we can certainly use the help.
What we DON'T need are millions of people that are scrabbling to feed themselves, without meaningful skills for this country, coming in to feed at the American trough. While it is certainly a humanitarian thing to do - support them - it has gotten to the point that Americans are NOT being treated the way they should be as a result, and the cost is far more than we have.You say, "What we DON'T need are millions of people that are scrabbling to feed themselves, without meaningful skills for this country, coming in to feed at the American trough. "
I say "and that is not happening". If you think it is, PROVE it. I won't hold my breath.
Uninformed, I would suspect.
"An undocumented worker may live and work in the U.S. for up to four years on a U visa. They may be eligible to apply for a lawful permanent status (a green card for those who don't know) after three years. Applicants may also be granted derivative visas for qualifying family members."
"In general, you can apply for your first work permit 150 days or more after submitting your asylum application (Form I-589) to USCIS or the immigration court. You can receive your work permit after at least 180 days have passed since you submitted your asylum application."
Why must they wait so long???? Why are Republicans preventing shortening that waiting period? Why don't Republicans want the necessary workforce to contribute to our prosperity?
I'll tell you why. The Republicans want a campaign issue to drive their xenophobic followers to the polls.
So the question now is how America became great? In my history class, many immingrants small and great play a role. But why is the African slaves being ignored including the local aborigines?
Hello Friend, In my view, the greatness of America is a complex and multifaceted topic with various historical perspectives. It's important to acknowledge that different groups and individuals have contributed to America's development in so many diverse ways. Your observation about the omission of African slaves and local indigenous populations in the narrative is valid.
America's history includes the contributions and struggles of various communities, including African slaves and indigenous peoples. Ignoring their role can result in an incomplete understanding of the nation's development. I think our growth should aim for a more inclusive representation of the diverse voices and experiences that have shaped the country.
SharTrue. Booker T. Washington impressed me.
Booker T. Washington was most impressive for his dedication to the education and upliftment of African Americans during a very challenging hurtful period in American history. I think the most notable achievement was his establishment of the Tuskegee Institute, an institution aimed at providing practical education and vocational training for Black students when they had little. Washington believed in the power of education and hard work and felt it would empower black individuals and build better black communities.
He encouraged Black people to focus on vocational and industrial education as a means of gaining economic independence and social advancement. Washington's emphasis on practical skills would lead to economic self-sufficiency.
Despite today, some Blacks have criticisms of Washington's efforts. I feel he laid the groundwork for later civil rights advancements. In my view, his commitment to education left a lasting impact on the African American community. I would say he was a man of courage, vision, and great intellect to see what could be achieved, even when faced with great obstacles.Yes, I am amongst those who criticized Washington as pandering to southern racists. WEB Du Bois was my preferred leader. What was the point of economic self sufficiency without civil and political rights? As soon as you built something racists were free to burn it down with impunity. While his contribution had its place, as a Black man familiar with the era in question, he was a dangerous accommodationist and totally unacceptable. Why is it so hard for whites to see the difference in these concepts, Sharlee?
It is probably why conservatives fail to understand our disgust with their concept of "Woke"In my view, I believe that one person's significant achievements should not diminish the accomplishments of another. Recognizing and appreciating the achievements of individuals on their own merits can contribute to a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the diverse contributions people make in various fields or aspects of life. Each person's accomplishments can be valuable and meaningful in their own right, and acknowledging this diversity can lead to a more inclusive and appreciative view of all human achievements. Could it not?
Did Booker T. Washington not break a barrier in education? Was he not on a path to make it better for his race?In my view, I believe that one person's significant achievements should not diminish the accomplishments of another. Recognizing and appreciating the achievements of individuals on their own merits can contribute to a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the diverse contributions people make in various fields or aspects of life.
----------
These men, Du Bois and Washington were in competition with each other. An accommodationist gave southern racists the breathing room and the green light to continue to disenfranchise and terrorize black populations in the area. Washingtons accommodationist stand detracted from needed reforms that were far more important as advocated by DuBois. So there is no complement, but contradiction.
Yes, self reliance and self sufficiency as promoted by Washington was important, but for people at the time that really had no rights much beyond that of slaves in the South, to what benefit?
I could not resist sharing this brush with History with you, Sharlee
My great aunt 1899-1992, told me she met Booker T. Washington as a "tween" in Virginia in 1911.
WEB DuBois' granddaughter made my home town, Denver, her home. She was a friend of the family and played bridge with Mom and the "girls", during the 1960s. She had recently passed within the last 3 or 4 years, well into her 80s.The breakthrough in education Booker T. Washington made benefit other races.
I agree, I always try to look at the positive that human beings offer, and give credit where due. In my view, he was a groundbreaker, who led more to follow, break even harder soil, and did not give up due to pure barriers set in their path. They could look to those who came before them and broke that ground. That offered pure incentive.
Shea, thank you. As a boy of 12 years, I was told the story. And the Tuskegee Institute was one of the best schools.
It is a high-ranked University. There are about 100 or so Black Universities Tuskegge is ranked 4.
Shear, thank heavens. 'Africa, my Africa! Africa, of proud warriors past. Afica, of whom my grand mother speaks, ti's Africa'. Thdn, when I gainf admission into seconary school, WEB de Bois, was drilled into my head. I add to this knowledge bank many other especially in the 21st century.
Tim Miller, former GOP operative for Jeb Bush, notes one of the clearest pieces of evidence of Trump's dictatorial intent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwEmzAfsmqgNow this is dumb...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … uth-social
Trump must be guilty of all that he is charged with for Jan 6, 2021. Since his guilt or innocence now takes second seat to his claim that as President he should receive immunity for all actions taken on his part on that day regardless as to how illegal.
Surely, even the current rightwing Tribunal, SCOTUS, can't let him get away with this.
As now he actually thinks that he should have the Divine Right of Kings. Just who does he think he is?
Immunity only applies for actions consistent with the job description, you cannot shoot the Pope in Times Square, and say that you are immune because when the President does it it is legal. Sounds a great deal like the stuff Nixon was saying back during the 1970s. That, too, was shot down.He is mentally ill and unfit to be dog catcher, let alone president.
World leaders are scared to death of a return of the God-King Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/19/politics … index.htmlNot sure about that --- Just read this CNBC
Both publicly and privately, U.S. executives said at Davos they weren't concerned if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. Banking leaders, in particular, expressed confidence that America will be OK if Trump returns to the White House.1
Both publicly and privately, U.S. executives said at Davos they weren’t concerned if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election.
Banking leaders, in particular, expressed confidence that America will be OK if Trump returns to the White House.
Several World Economic Forum attendees said non-American executives have privately expressed far more trepidation about a Trump 2024 victory than American leaders.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/18/davos-u … e%20House.Thanks, your link backed up the CNN story about World leaders are scared to death of a return of the Lying God-King Trump. While your quotes are from banking leaders the fact that non-American ones feel trepidation of a Trump 2024 victory makes my point.
Trump, isn't a 'God-King'. The description isn't raasonable. With all his many failings, how can that be? Is Trump, Adolf Hitler? Or is he a recarnation of the later? How can European leaders be afraid of a single person that is said can't catch a dog?
Yes, Trump is clearly a reincarnation of Hitler and a disciple of Putin.
Trump has also said, on many occasions, that African countries are quote "shit-hole countries". How can you defend a man so crass as to think that of you?
I didn't say he couldn't catch a dog (he would probably have one of his minions do it for him), but that he isn't fit to be elected dog catcher.
Talk about rapidly developing senility, while Biden is doing a superb job of handling multiple crises began by others, Trump can't remember who he is running against. His latest confusion is between Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi. Apparently he can no longer tell them apart. This is one of an increasing number of gaffes Trump is making.
Remember how often he has confused presidents and countries? This is senility on top of his mental illness.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/20/politics … index.htmlOMG - does this not take the cake -- comparing who is wackier. Keeping score, instead of realizing how odd we have come to expect we can't come up with two younger, more cognitively sound candidates.
Hey, maybe it's time to wake up and understand, we once again will be holding our noses and voting...
Yeah, let's just make a couple of lists of how is the most cognitively impaired. My how far our Nation, and let's face it its people,
have fallen. I mean, we all know Biden will have a very long list in regards to gaffs, stumbling around, and clearly --- "Oh you know the thing"Biden is more "cognitively sound" than most people younger than him.
In any case, you started this comparison. I just leveled the playing field. In my opinion, saying a person is senile without a shred of real proof is just wrong.
Your "evidence" appears to be gaffs which Trump makes as many of and Biden was making as long as I have been aware of him. Stumbling around. My God, I can't image what you would have said about FDR and his crutches and wheelchair.
Gaffs and stumbling around (just as Trump does but you won't mention) is that it? That is what you base his senility on? Don't you have outside analysis by professionals to use like I do with Trump's mental illness? At least give us that.
I will agree that many Americans have fallen - they are all called MAGA."Biden is more "cognitively sound" than most people younger than him."
And that would be your view, which I disagree with. No list of sources is needed... When it's a view. I think he is senile, and has a hard time connecting thoughts.It is not a view, it is an objective observation. You think Biden senile yet you think Trump is mentally stable and fit to be president. Amazing.
My honest view --- Biden is senile, and Trump is cognitively sound at this point.... Biden did a lousy job, Trump did a pretty good job. They both skirt the truth, and they both throughout their lives have been character-challenged. Biden openly lies, about very important issues. Trump is overly blunt. I don't and never have found Biden to be too intelligent, and lacks problem-solving skills, he invites problems.
I find Trump intelligent, good at problem-solving, and quick to every problem. I don't give a dam about either character at this point. Because both have marred characters in my view... I could care very little about what the EU thinks about either... I want a president that has a history of beating the other guy. In this case, my judgment says that out of the two --- that would be Trump, Period --- we thus far have two candidates, so my choice is made.
Also, you seem to have ignored my previous post where I truely said it like i fee it ---
Again -- OMG - does this not take the cake -- comparing who is wackier. Keeping score, instead of realizing how odd we have come to expect we can't come up with two younger, more cognitively sound candidates.
Hey, maybe it's time to wake up and understand, we once again will be holding our noses and voting...
Yeah, let's just make a couple of lists of how is the most cognitively impaired. My, how far our Nation, and let's face it its people,
have fallen.
So you got a choice, I am not about to choose the worst of the two.Actually, you are. One who started with challenges and has made them better versus one who started with a healthy economy and wrecked it by the end of his term.
The fact that MAGA cannot grasp that Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election, nor why that should disqualify him from future office, is why many see his followers as completely irrational and traitors to the Constitution itself.
And now Trump is displaying many of the same memory lapses that have plagued Biden, but his followers dismiss them immediately to claim he is of sound mind still. When we say MAGA is irrational, this is just one of many examples.I make no excuse for the Haley Gaff -- it was a graff for sure. I must weigh gaffes between the two on a scale, and we know Biden would far outweigh Trump regarding not only memory lapses, but spacial skills.
In the end, I think we let voters decide who they want as their president. I think Americans will have the last say.
I have admitted I am very much on board with the Make America Great agenda. I think we need to tend to America at this point... Fix her, then worry about all the rest.But you do excuses the hundreds of other gaffes Trump has made, why?
I agree America needs fixing, but it is from the damage Trump did in four years.I want to clarify that I haven't overlooked Trump's mistakes. I believe I've been impartial in evaluating his words over the years. I make an effort to delve into various contexts through research, even though there are instances when his words leave me disheartened. I have become more than ever committed to avoiding the dismissal of context, as I view it as an essential aspect of intelligent analysis. I hope to never reach a point where my mindset is so entrenched that it hampers my common sense.
Related Discussions
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 7 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 16
The Trump Dossier revisited.
by Randy Godwin 7 years ago
Today Sen. Diane Feinstein released the transcripts of the Richard Steele interview against the wishes of Republican committee members. Steel was worried about Trump being possibly blackmailed if he became POTUS and contacted the FBI as he should have. This was before the election and before the...
- 339
15 People!! close to Trump in contact with Russians. No Conspiracy???
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Over 15, close or very close associates of Donald Trump or his campaign have had contacts with Russia and Russian spies. How can this not be a conspiracy that Trump didn't know about??- Flynn - National Security Advisor (pleaded guilty)- Sessions - Former Attorney General (fired by Trump for...
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 22 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
- 19
Has Trump already lost the election in 2020?
by Stevennix2001 4 years ago
One of my favorite youtubers, Amazing Lucas, did a podcast covering how he feels the coronavirus could actually hurt Donald's election run; regardless of how you want to spin it. Even if Trump is miraculously able to overcome the virus, the problem is both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can...