Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
C'mon now, this is getting too rich . . .
Making an issue of gaffe comparisons (one is doing superbly and one is developing senility)?
Sure, this one was a whopper, and 'turn-around' is fair play. And this one was ripe for criticism, but . . . just think of the first old truism that pops to mind; glass houses, pots and kettles, whatever.
GA ;-)Yeah, and the other side thinks they have a brick house, when they are actually in one of those greenhouses. One of their main attacks has been the claim of senility. Well, now if they had the ability to be honest with themselves, they would see that their candidate has the same issues. Unfortunately, the programming prevents them from acknowledging any weakness of the cult leader and we can expect them to pretend like this never happened.
The problem for Trump is it is happening in the caucus season when there are still options with all their faculties about them.Hey, I wasn't picking sides. The comparison just struck me as a jaw-dropper. I was surprised someone hadn't resurrected one of those old multi-link Biden gaffe posts before I could reply.
As for that "brick house" thought — both sides will probably have quivers full of 'senility' arrows by October.
GAI agree, jaw-dropping. But apparently that is OK since gaffes, a stuttering disability, and being old is all that is needed for them to make false claims about Biden.
Biden has proved his fitness for office many times over while Trump (and I know you disagree) has proved himself unfit for office the moment he rode down his golden escalator spouting his xenophobic, racist attack lines against Jews, oops sorry, wrong dictator, for Trump, it is Mexicans; it was the other guy who had it in for Jews. (although one of his main support groups, Nazi/White Supremacists, who also hate Jews.)Yep, I do disagree, and the effects of getting old are what senility is all about.
GAThen I guess you an I are as senile as Biden is (I presume you are past 75. If not, I apologize in advance.)
Republican Senators (plus Trump) who are senile because they are old.
Trump - 77
McConnell - 82
Grassley - 91
Romney - 76
Risch - 81
That seems to be the currency used by others here against Biden. Since what is good for the goose is good for the gander, I decided to apply the same standard to their cult leader, meaning of course lying, self-proclaimed god-king and Putin wannabe Trump.
One difference though, Trump is, in the expert opinion of a host of mental health experts, Trump is dangerously mentally ill. He was when they wrote about it in 2015 and he has only gotten worse today.Yep, turn-about is 'fair play'. Trump supporters are making a big deal out of Biden's gaffes, but, they have a lot of material to work with. The point was the comparison's characterization of "doing superbly".
GAI'll provide the same evidence I gave to Sharlee to back up my claim that Biden is doing superbly. If this is proof then no president has done superbly ever.
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 - Many think this was a good thing.
* Rallied the World to Support Ukraine in Response to Putin’s Aggression - FACT
* 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.One word should suffice --- POLLS.... No maybe a few more, you seem to be in the minority, as the polls indicate.
Your POLLS mean nothing beyond the day the results are released and until they are about a month out and Comey isn't the FBI director ready to drop bombshells that cost somebody the election.
Also, is that your answer to all the great things Biden done that the a lot of people haven't taken the time to understand. Please explain how bad poll numbers have anything to do with the good work he has done.My polls.... They are not my polls. LOL, I guess you feel you can ignore polls... That's your prerogative.
I think the majority of Americans are well aware of "things Biden has done". Hence the polls.I am a trained statistician and spent a career with the Air Force applying what I was trained for. I know when polls are useful and when they are not. And believe me when I tell you, how you are trying to use them is incorrect and misleading.
Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Plan - While a majority of American adults support his infrastructure proposal — 56% — including 9 in 10 Democrats and half of independents, [Not surprisingly Republicans overwhelmingly do not], according to the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey.
American Rescue Plan - Sixty-three percent of Americans, according to a Gallup poll conducted March 15-21, approve of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill that Congress passed and President Joe Biden signed into law two weeks ago. While receiving nearly unanimous support from Democrats (97%), the legislation enjoys majority support among independents (58%) butnot surprisingly scant backing from Republicans (18%). - Gallup poll.
Chips Act - Two-thirds of voters back federal efforts to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing - Center for American Progress.
And so it goes with the rest of Biden's initiatives.
NOW, find some polls that refute what I just presented. Americans may not like Biden - right now - but they love what he did.I am a trained statistician and spent a career with the Air Force applying what I was trained for. I know when polls are useful and when they are not. And believe me when I tell you, how you are trying to use them is incorrect and misleading.
Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Plan - While a majority of American adults support his infrastructure proposal — 56% — including 9 in 10 Democrats and half of independents, [Not surprisingly Republicans overwhelmingly do not, according to the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey.
American Rescue Plan - Sixty-three percent of Americans, according to a Gallup poll conducted March 15-21, approve of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill that Congress passed and President Joe Biden signed into law two weeks ago. While receiving nearly unanimous support from Democrats (97%), the legislation enjoys majority support among independents (58%) butnot surprisingly scant backing from Republicans (18%). - Gallup poll.
Chips Act - Two-thirds of voters back federal efforts to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing - Center for American Progress.
And so it goes with the rest of Biden's initiatives.
NOW, find some polls that refute what I just presented or agree with my results Other than Republicans who would criticize Jesus even if he weren't Trump, Americans love what Biden has done even though they may not like him - right now.
Yeah, he is almost like a groundhog predicts an early spring -- if Biden pops his head up, one can be sure within the moment, he will provide some form of gaff, shuffle along, or a demeanor that makes one truely say --- "Things That Make You Go Hmmmm ..."
I thought Trump's gaffe about Haley was a one-off. Apparently not, according to Forbes.
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley said former President Trump had to be questioned on whether he was “mentally fit to do this” after he appeared to confuse her with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, several times, at a rally on Friday night.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfol … 70f0103976
A person who will not see any good thing, however small about Trump, will reconstruct or paint any bad things into a bigger picture. Both Trump and Biden are human beings. Both have weakness, sexsual or otherwise. What American president has not been taken with any fault while in office? And in spite of all the hundreds or myriad of weakness displayed by Trump, the guy still leads in the presidential race. Humanly, I compared him to Macbeth.
But I have seen and post a couple of good things about Trump: 1) Operation Warp Speed and 2) normalized relations between Israel and a few Arab countries. Those were very good accomplishments.
BTW (by the way), would you have the same comment if I were saying these things about Putin, Assad, Xi, or Un?
All presidents have had one fault or another while in office. Trump has had more, I bet, then all the rest combined. He is a pure menace to America and our Democracy.
I have given a physical explanation, with supporting links, as to WHY his followers are in fact a cult. Some people, at least 80 million in America are susceptible to brainwashing, more so than normal people. Studies have shown that IF a person has a predisposition to believe a certain way, then the use of demeaning and violent rhetoric actually changes their neuropathways.
They form a very strong (what I look at as} a bad habit, similar to heroin or nicotine addiction. For example, if they lean toward thinking badly of Nigerians (one of the nations Trump has viciously attacked) and they hear phrases like Nigerian's are "vermin" (one of his favorite words), that reinforces similar feelings they already have about Nigerians. In other words, it forms a positive feedback loop in their brain. It actually shuts down their ability to reason regarding that subject.
That is what has happened to anyone who thinks it is a good idea to vote for Trump.
This is the original article that got me to look more deeply into the phenomenon.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … s-00108378As regards to Nigeria, my country, Trump, was only trying to contain the influence of certain Islamic sects under Usman Bin Laden, and others to the United States. Presently in the Middle Belt and the whole of Northern Nigeria, kidnapping has become a proffesion, and the Nigerian Army, is combating those ISIS elements.
Not sure what you are getting at. What does calling your country a shit-hole country have to do with containing anything? He was simply trashing your country because he is racist.
No. Not 'real' Donald Trump. Like any other Ex-American president, Trump, meant well for Nigeria. D' you really like Nigeria, in calling her a 'shit hole'? She had not provocated you, nor your couxtry, America. It's when a person is thinking like this that I gave Trump, the benefit of the doubt in all accusation against him. But I'll accept all appellant judgement the Supreme Court of Americaruled against him. American service men are involved in helping the Nigerian Army, get rid of the ISIS elements during Trump's tenure God save America!
It's important to note that Trump's policies regarding certain Islamic sects aimed at containing their influence were part of a broader strategy. In the current scenario, kidnapping has unfortunately become a significant issue in the Middle Belt and Northern Nigeria. The Nigerian Army is actively combating ISIS elements involved in these activities. The situation reflects the complex challenges faced in addressing security concerns in the region. Do you not agree?
Regarding the character of the people wanting to seek asylum in America, they are, as a group, the most courageous people I know. In my opinion, a woman bring her child out of harms way has more courage the the lot of us in this forum combined, with the possible exception of any who volunteered to go to war for America.
I feel it is THAT sort of person we want in America."Regarding the character of the people wanting to seek asylum in America, they are, as a group, the most courageous people I know. "
Really? How in this world do you think you could know the reasons or what permitted these people to cross into America Illegally?Because it is well documented and let's watch you or anybody else on this forum go through the suffering they do to protect their family.
They are by far and away the most courageous and giving people in the world, risking life and limb to provide for a better life for their family.
I try very hard to respect Sen Scott (R-SC) because he doesn't have a vile mouth like so many other of his fellow MAGA do. But to pick Trump over Haley tells me he deserves no respect at all for purposely trying to put America at risk.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … tu-vpx.cnnThe very respected Fareed Zakaria explains why the rest of the free world are scared to death of a second Trump term. (At the same time, the dictators Trump looks up to and wants to imitate are loving the idea.)
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … ps-vpx.cnn"The very respected Fareed Zakaria" A CNN talking head. Really? I find him to be egoistical, and very predictable in his views.
He isn't one of those talking heads like Hannity, Carlson, Bartelomo and the other lying Fox propagandists. And you say "egotistical" like it is a bad thing to you. Your support of Trump clearly shows you think it is a good thing.
Here is what Trump did (to) America:
* Trump tried to kick millions of people off their healthcare by trying to repeal Obamacare.
* Trump was responsible for hundreds of thousand of needless deaths from Coronavirus with his ineffective policies (save for vaccine production which he later rejected) and his counterproductive rhetoric. An example of what Trump failed to do was he declined to implement a so-called “emergency temporary standard” when the coronavirus pandemic hit which would have saved countless lives.
* Trump facilitated the Christian religious indoctrination of our children in public schools. Thus moving one step closer to a theocracy run by Evangelicals.
* Trump marginalized Congress (one of his ploys to become dictator) by ignoring its constructional oversight power. For example, the Dept of Interior simply refused to respond to any congressional inquiries (except for when he wanted to influence the budget).
* Trump dismantled Obama-era policies that were designed to curb abuses by for-profit colleges, including rules designed to make it easier for borrowers to obtain loan forgiveness if they were cheated or duped by their college. This move protected one of the biggest educational rip-offs known to man - Trump University.
* Under Trump, the Agriculture Department scaled back the $60 billion Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the food support program for low-income Americans formerly known as food stamps. In fact, 755,000 Americans have lost their access to food aid under SNAP, according to the USDA’s own estimates. This resulted in an increase of children who were food insecure.
* By weakening an Obama era rule that was in the works, Trump saw to it that millions of workers lost access to extra pay for long hours.
* Trump was responsible for increasing the rate of global warming by rolling back Obama-era rules aimed at cracking down on methane emissions. This had major implications for not only the near-term warming caused by this potent greenhouse gas, but also shrunk the United States’ stature on the global stage.
* Trump ballooned the deficit and national debt with his tax cut for corporations and the wealthy. The poor and middle class saw very little benefit from it and it didn't increase jobs as promised.
* Trump devasted America's effort to fight against global warming by exiling climate scientists from Washington—literally.
* Trump also slowed down efforts to combat global warming (which is getting worse faster today) by going all-in on ending curbs on auto emissions
* Trump suppressed economic growth in the long-term by implementing a big crackdown on legal immigrants. Immigrants of all types make up for what would be a shrinking population without them. To continue to grow economically, population MUST increase. Trump cut that off at the knee-caps.
* Trump probably caused more Americans to die because he essentially blew up a bipartisan deal to more strictly regulate toxic chemicals that Americans are exposed to daily and instead tapped a group of chemicals industry experts to run and advise the program. Trump officials muzzled scientists and civil servants at the agency and crafted narrow approaches to assessing chemicals’ dangers that have massive loopholes.
* With his tariffs on China, Trump bankrupted thousands of American farmers.. He finally softened the blow by doling out billions of dollars collected from American companies subject to the tariffs.
* Trump rolled back rules on banks designed to prevent another financial crisis. Consequently, we have had an uptick in bank failures.
* Trump took aim and making our environment worse by issuing sweeping policy changes setting shorter deadlines for agencies to complete environmental reviews and drastically reducing the scope of environmental impacts federal agencies should consider.
* Trump increased discrimination in the housing market by rolling back Obama’s efforts to combat racial segregation in housing.
That is a list of bad things Trump did. In my source, there were scattered good ones which, to be fair, I will reveal in the next post.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … sis-451479And yet after all of this, conservatives have the nerve to present their candidate and agenda to me for serious consideration......
BTW, DeSantis dropped out - probably made some deal with Trump.
Some sort of corrupt bargain, I would think....
Haley might be a lightweight, she has deliberately tied her own hands behind her back in deference to Trump, while Trump will pull every dirty, demeaning trick against her, her family and any and all other associates as fair game.
She has no idea who she is dealing with, "A man with no honor"....Or perhaps he is aware of the polls, and Trump's popularity. Love to see the wagons circleing... Getting very hopeful with how I see taking shape.
You know, I haven't observed anyone here actively working hard to persuade others from the opposing viewpoint to reconsider. While I've noticed repetitive lists highlighting Biden's virtues and criticizing Trump, it seems more like pushing an agenda. The discussions often involve intense back-and-forth, at times becoming hyperbolic. I encourage you to pay attention to these comments and identify the individuals behind them.
Honestly, and without intending any offense, I doubt there's anyone on this forum who can envision you changing your perspective, regardless of the circumstances.What those lists are are FACTS to use in making reasoned opinions by non-cult members.
Well, to be honest Sharlee, that would apply to my partners in crime, Valeant, ESO, and assorted special guest stars. Am I so much more intransigent than they?
I have pulled no punches with you, I neither trust MAGA, its leader nor the direction it is taking us all. It is much back and forth, but what you are oblivious to is the appearance you give of accepting anything Trump does and excusing it, while heralding some concept of his being a superb bean counter while in office, even he is thoughly bereft of character and principle which, in my opinion, are much more important for the man with the hand on the nuclear trigger.
No, as things currently are, I can't see changing my position. But, I am not alone nor exclusive in my intransigence regarding this matter. I don't take offense, because you should already know by now where I stand and why... I have nothing to hide.
Now for some good things Trump did as president in addition to Operation Warp Speed (which he later sort of disavowed when he learned his base hated it) and normalizing relations between Israel and a few Arab countries.
*Trump’s White House took quiet steps to promote U.S. development of AI
* The anti-monopolists started winning — despite Trump at first, then with his help
* Trump took a big swing at finally fixing health-care technology
* Trump cracked down — mostly successfully — on unwanted calls and texts
* Trump made it possible to follow the Pentagon’s money
* Trump imposed a near-ban on government use of Chinese drones
* Trump made it easier to prosecute financial crimes like money laundering
I found two more pretty bad thing he did:
* Trump rescinded rules protecting workers at federal contractors, especially for reporting sexual harassment (something near and dear to his heart)
* Trump made it possible for women to lose their right to privacy.
Bottom line, while Trump apparently had some successes with things technical he was an abject failure with anything that had a social consequence.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … sis-451479Opinion: Nikki Haley’s right. Red flags about Trump’s mental fitness can’t be ignored
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/21/opinions … index.htmlI feel this is laughable -- I mean it would seem many Demacrats have found it easy, one might say, to ignore A very confused man in the White House.
And Trump comes off with a gaff, and we see the left cable go off its hinges. Must laugh.Actually not true - again. Biden is hardly confused, you must be talking about Trump.
"a gaff"? "a gaff" Lying Trump is known for his gaffs almost as much as Biden. One difference though - many of Trump's gaffs were actually lies.I made my point --- I don't do the stick out my tongue bit and say "no you are wrong" Seems childish.
This is classic --- " Lying Trump is known for his gaffs almost as much as Biden. " OMGHow else is one supposed to tell you you are wrong? Am I just supposed to sit back and let a falsity go unchallenged? I think not.
Classic, but true nevertheless.I believe it's important to acknowledge that we each have our perspectives, and neither of us has the right to declare the other wrong. We can engage in debates and discussions, but understanding and respecting diverse views is crucial. I've noticed that our communication styles differ; you find my comments baiting and hyperbolic, which is acceptable in a debate but may not be attractive.
Regarding the statement about Trump's gaffes compared to Biden's, I see it differently. In my view, Trump hasn't exhibited as many gaffes as Biden. This is simply my observation and perspective, differing from yours. However, I don't claim an innate right to declare you wrong.
It's evident that we approach things differently and have distinct ways of conducting ourselves. I appreciate challenges and discussions but hope for a tone that fosters constructive dialogue without accusatory undertones.You wrote "neither of us has the right to declare the other wrong. "
REALLY?!! I thought we were living in America. I guess I was wrong.
Sarcasm aside, it would be irresponsible of me to let objectively false statements, whether they are opinions or "alternative" facts, stand unchallenged. People deserve to know the TRUTH.
I don't think you have commented yet on my post that medical experts think Biden is a "superager" which any fair an unbiased observation would find.
Finally, if you had read what I wrote, you would have see that I agree with you about the relative number of gaffes. I suspect Biden has more than Trump, but Trump has a lot nevertheless.
You know what Trump does more than probably anyone else in America? LIE. It has bee PROVEN that he is by far and away the King of liars.
I would hope you agree that lying about big and important things (for example, Covid) is far, far worse than gaffes."Sarcasm aside, it would be irresponsible of me to let objectively false statements, whether they are opinions or "alternative" facts, stand unchallenged. People deserve to know the TRUTH."
You gave no example of what you found I said that was untrue. You never do. Your view may be the last word with you, it is not with me. As a rule, I find your views marred. Yet I give you space to share them. I have asked you frequently when you accused me was posting a mistruth. I as a rule offer sources when feeling I am up to stand behind even one of my views. I think conversations could be clearer if you posted the example of what you feel I was not being truthful about. Other than a view, that would be just my spin on a subject.
"I don't think you have commented yet on my post that medical experts think Biden is a "superager" which any fair and unbiased observation would find.
This is comical --- I am not in the habit of giving an opinion of persons I have no idea who they are or their credentials. I find that professional views differ. I offered a physician's view that I have come
to trust due to his clear character to be prudent with his views. Just a different view than the people you offered. I was careful not to dispute the information you offered.When I write you are "wrong" about something or what you said was "false" or similar words, do those not constitute examples??
You make no mention of the issue, the example you feel is untruth. Your style of communication is hard to delve context. As a rule I am sharing a view, not always stating my views as facts. Just thoughts,feelings. One can certainly debate views, but to just label view mistruths --- I am just not accustom to that form of debate. I have learned to accept the style of other users here, and can weed through the weeds, and respect others views.
It is highly likely lying, dictator wannabe Trump will win the anti-democratic Republican nomination. The day after Nikki Haley drops out or Trump gains enough committed delegates, action needs to be taken quickly.
Someone needs to file suit to prevent Trump from assuming office should he accomplish the unlikely a second time an win. The argument? As several judges have now found Trump participated in an insurrection. As such, the 14th Amendment bars people like Trump from ever holding office again.
What will happen, I wonder, when the Supreme Court finds Trump ineligible to hold office?"What will happen, I wonder, when the Supreme Court finds Trump ineligible to hold office?"
Let's hope that it is not an "if"Several of the Conservatives on the Court have little in the way of ethics, two even lied to the Senate and two sexually abuse women and two were found to have accepted large amounts of money and other reimbursements from Conservative benefactors.
IF they hold true to their strict constructionism standard, they will have no choice but to bar Trump from holding office. However, whoever files suit must not totally rely on the 14th. They need to bring in the sections of the basic Constitution that say that the presidency is an "office". I think I heard there are at least 45 citations in the Constitution that refer to the presidency as an "office".
LOL -- or maybe leave it up to Americans who to vote for... Is that so very scary for you?
LOL - So you are saying do away with the Constitution and use your own rules?
Yes, we say once that Trump conned his way into the White House. Trump is exactly the kind of demagogue our founders were scared of and tried to protect America from. They said several times they feared the public is susceptible.
"Less than two weeks after the start of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, George Washington wrote to his friend, the Marquis de Lafayette, on June 6, 1787, explaining that his critical purpose in attending the convention was to prevent a demagogue from gaining power in the politically unstable young nation and thus destroying it." - History now shows Washington unfortunately failed at his self-assigned task because lying Trump got elected.
"The deeper risk, he [Washington] wrote that early June, was that the political chaos created fertile ground for exploitation “by some aspiring demagogue who will not consult the interest of his country so much as his own ambitious views.” - Again, Trump was Washington's worst nightmare.
Further -
"In a letter written three weeks later to David Stuart, a Virginia politician and distant family relation, Washington lamented that the widespread denigration of the Articles of Confederation, and the federal government it created, had rendered “the situation of this great country weak, inefficient and disgraceful.” He concluded the letter to Stuart by again stating that the political crisis made possible demagogues who pose a dire threat to the United States.
Washington’s greatest fear that summer of decision in Philadelphia was that unwise, self-seeking politicians — even if fairly elected to public office — would tear down the central government and its constitutional laws for the sake of their own advancement and glorification." - Which, of course, is what lying Trump tried to do and almost succeeded.
Others, beside Washington expressed those same fears about people like lying Trump
So if they were scared and wrote rules to minimize the chance of a Trump actually gaining the office, then I am scaredI trust The Supreme Court of the United States to interpret the Constitution, and in my opinion, they have done a commendable job. Similarly, I believe in leaving the responsibility of voting to the American people.
It seems that your perspective differs significantly from mine based on your comments. HummmmYou may trust the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. But I don't.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are by observation activist judges who make the Constitution say what their political ideology dictates to them.
PROOF: Precedents the Roberts Court has overturned
* The Dobbs Decision overturning Roe v Wade
* Johnson vs US (they overturned their own decision a few years earlier!!)
* Gonzales vs Carhart
* Pearson vs Callahan
* Citizens United vs FEC
* Hurst vs Florida
* South Dakota vs Wayfair
* Parents Involved in Community Schools vs Seattle School District #1
* Montejo vs Louisiana
* Hurst vs Florida
* Janus vs AFSCME
* Knick vs Township of Scott, PA
* Franchise Tax Board of CA vs Hyatt
* Bowles vs Russell
* Leegin vs PSKS
* McDonald vs City of Chicago
* Trump vs Hawaii
It is clear the Conservatives on the Court do not believe in Stare Decisis like they promised the Senate they would.
Question - would you leave it up to the voters if Trump were 30 years old or not a natural born citizen???Our Laws protect us from your scenario. It is very clear, that you are willing to ignore the voices of the people. That is what our Constitution is all about... I trust our system. I accept the will of the people, even if I have doubts.
You still dodged the question - Question - would you leave it up to the voters if Trump were 30 years old or not a natural born citizen???
What you are implying to me by ignoring the requirements of our Constitution that, at least for electing presidents, you do not wish to follow the Constitution.
Here's the leader of the Republican Party comparing himself to pedophile priests, in trying to make the argument that they all should be above the law:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKJnhjljOEY
So in other words, Trump thinks people should be able to get away with abusing children. This is your candidate, MAGA.All I can say is wow! A combination of the inane and insane.
We have had 44 administrations before his and this man who never opened a book in his life has the nerve to touch on principles of the law and deportment associated with the Office of the President of the United States. A totally ridiculous analysis contrary to every principle associated with the rule of law.
It was kinda dumb to use so tawdry an example as "pedophile priests", to make his case for supporting his preference for "divine rights of kings".
I can only hope that more people can see these videos and pull their heads out of their a$$es, taking a good look as to who it actual it is that they are running for ......
I can't get that man to the gallows fast enough. Lord knows that he can't be allowed to conceal himself from lady justice, again and againYou know it's damning when even the MAGA members of this forum cannot Trumpsplain what he really meant to us. It's been a very quiet day in here as they are probably sitting at home shaking their heads at this one.
If i were Governor Haley, I would brace myself. She is in for an unprecedented assault by someone who is anything but a gentleman. As Trump wants a coronation rather than nomination, Haley may have to surrender or be reduced to tears from anger and frustration and that is not Presidential.
My thinking is that 1) if she wins and does OK in SC, then she will stay in through super Tuesday, 2) if she gets close, she will stay in through SC, or 3) if she gets beat badly, she will drop out before SC.
In all cases, Trump will win the nomination. At that point, we should see the polls swing in Biden's direction.Again, can we trust the people to vote? Do you feel, your arms will be twisted? I don't understand the apprehension about trusting "We The People".
Will we ever get back to just accepting the voter outcomes?Asks someone who backs the guy who tried to get the electoral votes tossed in the 2020 election...
I'm willing to share my perspective — ask the individual who conscientiously weighs the pros and cons, as they find this basic tool essential due to the government's stance on candidates. The paramount concern for me is job performance. I've shifted my standpoint to prioritize effective governance over rhetoric and ideologies, which, in my opinion, have led the country astray.
Identifying as a commonsensical conservative, I've opted to support the individual I believe has demonstrated competence amidst significant challenges. This person has made complex problem-solving seem straightforward, instilling trust in their ability to navigate challenges successfully.
My indifference extends to the labels; one being hyperbolic, the other merely a politician, and not a particularly adept one. Ultimately, my experience under Trump was one of security, reduced anxiety, and confidence in his ability to address issues. Conversely, under Biden, I find myself feeling the opposite.
I observe that a minority, in my perception, is willing to make counterproductive choices. Nevertheless, we all possess the right to choose. Personally, I prefer to step back and let "we the people" make the collective decision. Hey, this is what we do. If we are dissatisfied, we do it all over again, and a majority, thus far have been respected. We witnessed disruption, and still, the majority were heard.'Identifying as a commonsensical conservative, I've opted to support the individual I believe has demonstrated competence amidst significant challenges. This person has made complex problem-solving seem straightforward, instilling trust in their ability to navigate challenges successfully.'
So the guy who openly lied about the dangers of a deadly pandemic, to put his reelection goals ahead of public safety, somehow instilled trust in their ability to navigate challenges? The one whose actions led to around 200,000 excess deaths? Odd claim for a health care professional. Imagine if your doctor lied to you about your diagnosis and put your life at risk, would you have trust in that doctor going forward? Yeah, we're in different realities about who to trust, that's for sure.
Yes, the minority on January 6 made a 'counterproductive choice' as you call it. And the majority were respected, but just barely, thanks to the brave actions of a few to not give in to illegal pressures from the leader of the minority. Back in the old days (2016), the loser used to accept the decision of the majority. Now, the MAGA party no longer respects our democracy by nominating the person who tried to end it in 2020.I can only share, I felt Trump did a good job handling COVID. I feel some of his words were compassionate in the very beginning, hoping to deminish panic. I also can remember may Demacrats sharing the same thoughts. I mean Pelosi danced through the streets of China Town in SF.
I am not one to lean toward selective thinking. I took it all in. I also have followed the current problems that Fauchi may have caused. I think Trump made a very big mistake trusting him.
Not sure what you are eluding to in regard to MAGA not respecting democracy.Even though he is objectively responsible for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths you feel he did a good job in handling Covid?
FORBES - Trump's policies resulted in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans - according to the authoritative medical publication Lancet https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/ … 691f5f77e8
THE GUARDIAN - US could have averted 40% of Covid deaths, says panel examining Trump's policies - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … lth-policy
THE ROLLING STONE - Birx, Who Gushed Over Trump’s Handling of Virus, Now Says He’s Responsible for Hundreds of Thousands Dead (Birx was Trump's choice to lead the Covid response effort. Problem is, he never listened to her.) https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p … s-1148052/
COMMON DREAMS - The Day Trump Decided to Let Hundreds of Thousands of Americans Die to Gain Political Advantage https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/tr … s-covid-19
WASHINGTON POST - The Post analyzes several ways to estimate "unnecessary" deaths from Covid due to Trump's actions. They all point to more than 100,000. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ble-trump/
I can get a bunch more, if you like, but they will say the same thing - Lying Trump's (which he did about Covid to) terrible actions and lack of actions led to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths due to Covid.Done ruminate on the subject --- we hold different views on the subject. I am sure you can come up with a lot more... Not interested.
No surprise there - when the TRUTH is uncomfortable and there is no rational rebuttal, the best thing to do is ignore it.
You are approaching baiting and getting personal. I will again repeat -- Done ruminate on the subject --- we hold different views on the subject. I am sure you can come up with a lot more... Not interested.
Your bating. I shared my thoughts and made every attempt to be open, and polite. I very much disagree with your view on this subject, as well as your demeanor. Time to move on.
What problems could Fauci have possibly caused other than to try to limit the damage Lying Trump was causing.
I don't think he was "alluding" to anything. He was stating it directly that it is obvious even to the casual observer that MAGA does not respect democracy. If they did, they certainly wouldn't support a dictator-in-waiting to be President.I think you may want to tune into Cspan and watch Fauci's Congressional clips where was questioned and had his opportunity to an open forum. I think first-hand is always a better way to get info to form views.
And how does that comment answer the question I posed - "What problems could Fauci have possibly caused other than to try to limit the damage Lying Trump was causing?"
Voter outcomes are fine when the candidate is qualified according to what is prescribed in the Constitution.
If Trump manages to get immunity for his crimes of undermining the Electoral College procedures.
Or
Can beat the rap on the trial that WE all insist take place that is being prosecuted by Smith. So, we know that we will not be placing a convicted felon in the White House.
If he can get past these challenges, then he is as qualified as anyone else as a candidate.
But, I don't care if he is running for office or is popular, no one is above the law..Have you strayed away from my simple question? Again, can we trust the people to vote? Do you feel, your arms will be twisted? I don't understand the apprehension about trusting "We The People".
Not sure your comment even fringes on my question. It was simplistic. But, I will bite.
"Voter outcomes are fine when the candidate is qualified according to what is prescribed in the Constitution."
So what if they are not what you feel is prescribed in the Constitution? I mean it seems all don't decipher its meanings the same. Will you still be voting? I don't see where you or I have any power to ultimately make sure the Constitution is followed to the letter or we may not agree on particular context as to meanings of the forefathers. Are you wrong, am I?
"Can beat the rap on the trial that WE all insist take place that is being prosecuted by Smith. So, we know that we will not be placing a convicted felon in the White House."
It would appear the wheels of justice are working, there will be a trial. Which there should be, a prosecutor has claimed one is warranted.
Thus far he has not been found guilty of a felony. I would surmise if he is found guilty this would add new information that many Americans would consider before deciding to vote in 2024. This kind of information most naturally will be looked at differently due to individuality.
The law as far as I can see ---
The Constitution sets very few eligibility requirements for presidents. They must be at least 35 years old, be “natural born” citizens, and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
There are no limitations based on character or criminal record. While some states prohibit felons from running for state and local office, these laws do not apply to federal offices.
So, it comes down to - "We The People", does it not? Majority.
So again simply, Will we ever get back to just accepting the voter outcomes?We are really mixed up here , Sharlee.
But there the is the issue of whether Trump was in violation of Section 3 of Amendment 14. It is contemplated by a couple of states to remove him from the ballot on that basis. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide if that is valid and I await their decision.
Outside of the prohibition regarding "insurrection", aiding and abetting, even Al Capone could have run for President. But who would vote for him?
I just believe that a great deal of non MAGA people, independents and moderates would not take Trump as a candidate lightly in the face of serious criminal convictions. Trump cannot win without a considerable amount of their support.
If Trump is acquitted as a result of the trial, it would go along way to reassuring people who don't like the idea of a felon in the White House. Thus, Trump will do everything possible to delay such a trial in fear that he would lose and lose a chunk of GOP support.
The government is here for the purpose of supporting and adhering to the Constitution as written and the court adjudicates based on what is interpreted therein.
Your inquiry about the difference in how it is to be deciphered is to ultimately determine by the court.
"We the people" works within the guardrails set by the Constitution regarding eligibility and qualifications.
We accept voter outcomes for candidates that are eligible and qualified according to the Constitution.
Did not mean to confuse, is there anything that I can add?I just wonder if there is a majority that will even be considering what we did in the past, regarding the Constitution. It seems we are all making our own rules, does it not?
I am a little confused with this comment, tell me you are saying?
No, the rules in the Constitution for a person to hold the office of the Presidency is that they;
* Be at least 35 years old
* Be a natural born citizen of the United States
* Have lived in America for 14 (I think) years AND
* Have not engaged in an insurrection having once pledged an oath to uphold the Constitution.
In these matters, the voters are of no consequence. They only matter once a candidate meets those Constitutional requirements.
Two judges have formally found that Trump DID engage in insurrection and multiple judges had implied it. The final arbiter will, of course, be the Supreme Court.As I said frequently here over the past few days --- this all will lay in the hands of the Supreme Court. I will not question their rulings.
Again, you dodged the question. I can only assume now that it would OK with you that a 30 year old, non-native American, who has spent only a couple of years in America should be allowed to appear on the Republican primary or the General election ballot. And, if elected, hold the office.
So much in believing in the Constitution as being law.Oh my gosh, I missed your drift. Who are you referring to? I am in no way OK with a 30-year-old being on the ticket, I am not a non-native American, who has spent only a couple of years in America.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I will stick with the laws on the books, I will allow the Supreme court to decipher the context of the Constitution.OK, we are getting some where now that you have committed to something.
You keep saying "let the voters decide" even if Trump is disqualified because he engaged in an insurrection.
BUT, what you just wrote says that the "voters can't decide" if Trump were 30 years old. The "voters cannot decide" if Trump was not a natural born citizen of America. And [b]"the voters cannot decide" if Trump has resided in America less than 14 years.
If you are agree with those things, then why do you refuse to say the "voters cannot decide" if Trump engaged in an insurrection?
You said "Thus far he has not been found guilty of a felony. "
I respond - Yes, that is true. BUT, he has been found liable for crimes that would be felonies in a criminal court. Does that not matter to you that he is liable for the Crime of Sexual Assault (one judge said it was rape no matter how you cut it), for the Crime of Bank Fraud, for the Crime (in some states) of Defamation. The first to reach the level of Felonies.
Are you really telling me that is the kind of person you want to be your president? A sexual batterer, a fraudster, a con man?"BUT, he has been found liable for crimes that would be felonies in a criminal court."
It appears you are questioning the courts. I think he was brought to justice in the right courts. I think the judge that labeled Trump a rapist was out of line in regards to his position. I would almost think he could be held liable for slander.
I have answered your question regarding who I will be voting for, and all the many whys of it.'It appears you are questioning the courts. I think he was brought to justice in the right courts. I think the judge that labeled Trump a rapist was out of line in regards to his position. I would almost think he could be held liable for slander.'
Funny, you accuse another of 'questioning the courts' and then in the very same paragraph, question the courts by accusing the judge, who knows New York's laws and what they mean, of mislabeling someone that a jury found penetrated a woman's genitalia without her consent. What do you call someone who does such a thing? Oh, that's right, you call him your preferred nominee for the presidency.Is it relevant how we label an individual who engaged in digital penetration of a woman? I'm not a New York judge responsible for legal considerations. From my perspective, the judge displayed bias and shared it openly.
Personally, I tend to believe women, such as Tara Reide in the case with Biden. I classify actions like smelling hair or a pat on the butt as forms of sexual abuse. I have no hesitation in using the term "rape." Both men seem equally implicated in allegations of sexual abuse. I lend my ear to all women, irrespective of political convenience.Both men seem equally implicated in allegations of sexual abuse.
Biden has been "implicated" by Reade. She has done quite a bit of press both written and televised. Her allegations have not been considered by a jury. I wonder why she hasn't sought Court action?
On the other hand, Trump was found liable for sexual assault by a jury.
It's a big distinction for me.Willow, In April 2020, Reade lodged a complaint with the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, alleging rape. Although the police accepted the report, the legal time limit for prosecuting the alleged assault had expired. Consequently, she had no further legal action available due to the reported sexual abuse in Washington, DC.
"NPR verified the police report through a law enforcement source, with Biden named in the record. NPR has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the complete report."
Reade's course of action resembles that of Jean Carroll. However, Carroll's lawsuit against Trump for rape was based on a new law enacted in New York in 2022. This law provided adult sexual assault victims a one-time opportunity to file civil cases, even if the statute of limitations had elapsed. Carroll proceeded to file a lawsuit against Trump, alleging rape and seeking damages.
While I believe both women should have had similar rights, the legal landscape in DC was clear, leaving Tara with no legal recourse. The law is the law. Until it's changed, as New York saw fit to... Could I be cynical and read into why NY chose to change the law that provided adult sexual assault victims a one-time opportunity to file civil cases, even if the statute of limitations had elapsed? Maybe, but I think I will consider both cases straight up, giving both women the benefit of the doubt. No distention in my case. The two men tied on this issue on my pros and cons list. Sad as that sounds.
In my opinion, Tara was unable to pursue a case, making it uncertain what a jury might have decided. I am inclined to consider and believe Tara, as she presented several compelling pieces of evidence, much like Carroll.
SharI think a lot of states have expanded the statute of limitations in terms of sexual abuse. I can see that a great number of states revised their statute of limitations for sexual assault in 2019.
On May 3, 2019, DC Law 22-311 went into effect. The amendment changed Title 23 of the District of Columbia Official Code to eliminate the criminal statute of limitations for first, second, third, and fourth-degree sexual abuse.
I could be misinterpreting but I don't see any statute of limitations or maybe she fell under some other exception?
https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-cr … 1706125593I have no problem with the law being changed. Many women are fearful of reporting rape or sexual abuse. Many live with that pain for many years. We are all different, and I would never judge a woman that stepped forward to unburden themselves of the pain of rape.
"District of Columbia https://www.rainn.org/state-state-guide … es-limitat
Has this state eliminated the statute of limitations for all felony sex crimes? No. DC has a statute of limitations for its most serious felony sex crime.
Does this state reduce a statute of limitations if a victim chooses not report? No. A victim's choice to report or not report does not affect the statute of limitations.
Does this state have exceptions to statutes of limitations for DNA evidence? No.
What is the state's statute of limitations for its most serious felony sex crimes? 11-20 years.
Learn more about criminal statutes of limitations in the District of Columbia."
Again --- "Reade says she filed a police report just over a week ago with the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department because she was worried about her safety after receiving "online harassment."
The police investigation is currently open, though the statute of limitations for prosecuting the alleged assault has expired.
NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report." https://www.npr.org/2020/04/19/83796652 … allegation
I feel this source is reputable.
I would also point out that 1) Biden has not been found liable for anything and 2) Reade's veracity is very questionable while Carroll's is not.
Another think I would point out is that a criminal case of rape would probably have been tried had Carroll made the complaint at the time it happened.You certainly seem to feel your word is "the last word" -- I find this statement biased.
"Reade's veracity is very questionable while Carroll's is not."
In my view, you have shown to express "selective credibility" Your statement implies a tendency to accept or trust the allegations made by one woman while questioning or dismissing similar allegations from another woman based on certain biases or preconceived notions.
I feel that statement works to share a lot about your mindset. Very revealing.Do you not agree that Facts are the last word? If so, then yes, if I state Facts, that is the last word.
No, your comment about "allegations" is not true. I trust Carroll because her veracity has not been challenged and has in FACT been upheld in a court of law.
I do not trust Reade, as I And Others, have pointed out with the appropriate links, that her veracity is in doubt.
So, wouldn't you agree that it makes sense to trust what Carroll says more than you would Reade?I believe it's not acceptable to favor one woman's perspective over another. Having a preconceived mindset indicates a potential lack of impartiality. Such a thought process can be detrimental to society as a whole. You asked for my opinion, and I find your comment to be biased, though I'm not surprised, as it aligns with the type of thinking I've come to associate with your comments.
You continually think that it's a preconceived mindset based on politics. But seem to discard that we are basing our conclusions on the facts of the two cases. Secondly, your view of these examples perfectly illustrates the MAGA mindset - a willingness to believe anything that attacks the democrats, even when there are so many inconsistencies. It's not partisanship to believe someone innocent until proven guilty.
Could it have happened to Reade? Sure. But E. Jean Carroll proved it happened, in a court of law, to a jury. You may think Biden is the equivalent of Trump, but that has not been proven, so your belief is clearly flawed. Trump has been proven to be a rapist. Period.
Let alone two other women who testified that he did similar things to them in that E. Jean Carroll trial. So now instead of one example for Biden, you have multiple women you should be believing in Trump's case. If you believe the women, you must believe Trump is a serial rapist then. Right?
You're right, it is relevant - and as the judge noted, in most states, when a man penetrates a woman's genitalia, it is considered rape. That is not bias, that is him correcting Trump's false claims in the media.
Personally, the belief is in the details. There are instances where women have lied about the circumstances. I won't attack a victim, but I want to hear the details before determining who to believe. Tara Reade's case is so littered with inconsistencies that it's hard to believe.
And no, both men are not equally implicated when one has been found liable by a jury of his peers of having raped a woman - even if that rape was done with his fingers. You have no court that has such a finding for Biden, so it's the latest false equivalency to try and excuse a vote for a rapist.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/1 … ces-260771We all hold our own perspectives, and in this matter, ours diverge. I don't favor one over the other intentionally. As I mentioned, Joe and Donald seem evenly matched on this issue. I'll simply acknowledge that I've gained some understanding of your approach to forming opinions.
Yup, a court finding by a jury that heard evidence and the definition of a law is how I've come to mine. Accusations seem to be enough for others.
Do you consider a man you jaywalks "evenly matched" with a man who murders? That is what you just implied.
Your analogy is absurd and doesn't merit a response. However, I reiterate both men faced accusations of the same type of sexual abuse, involving the penetration of a woman's vagina with their fingers. Both survivors chose to come forward after many years.
Both individuals reported their experiences of sexual abuse. One was able to pursue legal action because the state laws governing the crime had recently been changed, enabling the pursuit of the case. The other, however, couldn't bring her claim to court due to the statute of limitations on the crime she alleged. Again you in my view show a great bias. In my view, I find it distasteful.
https://www.brucklaw.com/dc-sexual-abus … mitations/
MAGA thinks Trump, and only Trump, is above the law.
Have you answered my simple question yet? IF Trump were 30 years old or not a natural born citizen of the United States, would you still be saying "can we trust the people to vote? "???
OR, would you agree he can't be on any ballot because he doesn't meet the qualifications?I want to emphasize my unwavering respect for our legal system, spanning from local to state to federal levels. This stance directly addresses your inquiry. The United States has established laws governing who is eligible to run for the presidency, and I place full trust in the Supreme Court to address any issues related to candidates. In no way do I consider myself knowledgeable enough to question their decisions. This, for me, is a matter of unequivocal trust in the legal processes in place.
It's certainly acceptable for you or anyone to share your concerns regarding Supreme Court decisions. I see no point to question or show disdain, due to just not being an expert on deciphering the
Constitusion. Not to say I don't share a perspective on decisions, I just don't stand behind my "armchair quarterbacking".
In 2016 maybe MAGA didn't know exactly what they were getting. In 2024, there is no excuse.
Jen Psaki breaks down the message in the title, 'The End of Politics: Trump Makes Simple Offer to Voters.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeUlAqE-H70
It's pretty much what he's offering. elect him, make him immune to our laws, and he will do whatever he wants, including overturning elections. Germany is not standing for it, as millions turned out to protest their far-right party and called them out for being anti-democracy. As Maddow notes, it's the exact similarity that we are doing with our insurrectionist candidates.It would seem at this point only the Supreme Court can deem him to have had immunity.
This is not a forgone deal.Yes, but the fact that he's even arguing for it means he wishes to be above our laws. Meaning, he wishes to be an autocrat.
And in the post before that one, you listed the eligibility requirements for age, citizenship and residency, but it was glaring that you omitted the stipulations set forth in the 14th Amendment. Glaring.I can't disagree with your thoughts on how he seems to think he deserves immunity, and this certainly is unprecedented. I can't fathom how the SC will rule. he has put them in a really bad spot.
I also am not sure about how the court will determine the 14th Amendment. I think prudence on both sides has made
really good points.
I am very sad to see what we are facing as we head toward the 2024 election. I have shared I am disappointed in America not seemingly able to come up with two great new candidates. What we can look forward to is more division, and all getting worse. No matter who wins. Maybe time for all to realize we need to be heard, and not just settle for being told.
I don't think we as a society are recognizing the true
glaring problems.
It is obvious that the Germans are not going down the Nazi, fascist rabbit hole again, could someone clue in MAGA?
Great video, thanks...
Here are some of the Nikki Haley voters and their thoughts if Trump becomes the nominee. While 70-80% of the GOP is likely MAGA now, there's a good chunk that is also never-MAGA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpqRlgEN1yAIt might be my intuition but I think that Trump may well be in for a major upset in New Hampshire.
Forty percent of Haley supporters would prefer Biden over Trump, even though they are Republicans.Nope, he is winning by 13% points as I wrote this.
The gap may not be as large as it was in Iowa. New Hampshire is a blue state and if she can't pull it off here, it may be difficult elsewhere.
The Dems say that they would prefer Trump as the nominee, do they think that he will be easier to beat than Haley in the general election?If he gets the nomination, and then Jack Smith gets a conviction, there goes the moderates and independents. Also, Trump will have the anchors of January 6, women's body autonomy, and $7.8 trillion in debt in a single term hanging around his neck the entire campaign.
I imagine they do, because it makes some sense.
* Haley appeals to many independent and rational Republicans who can't stand Lying Trump and therefore would vote for her rather than Biden.
* Like in 2020, many Haley supporters won't vote for Lying Trump and may vote for superager Biden OR simply won't vote for either.
* Haley won the 29% of the New Hampshire electorate who identify as Moderate by a 3 to 1 margin. Lying Trump will not get most of those votes in November.
* For those New Hampshire voters who oppose banning abortion, Haley won the majority. That issue will kill Lying Trump in November.
* For those New Hampshire voters who said Lying Trump is not fit for office IF he is convicted, 84% went for Haley. These same people will go for Biden or not vote at all.
In my opinion, Lying Trump is toast in November, thank God.
Too much negation about Ex-President Trump. And the man seems infamous. Yet, he had a large base. And again, one thing unique about him as a tag, is that he was hated more than anyone else in the poltico. As an outsider, I had doubts that such a person can merited all these ngative aspersions credited to Trump, in a democracy?! Trump, recently had his mother-in-law buried. May she rip.
There is not nearly enough negation about Lying, anti-democratic Trump. He has a large base of brainwashed Americans - it is called a cult.
He merits all of these negative aspersions because he is an existential threat to our democracy.And let justice take its course. It's the votes of the people? that decides? who becomes the president of the USA? and not a cult factory. Come November, and the deed will be done. And it's either Trump or Biden.
In America, the people can vote for qualified candidates. If the candidate doesn't meet the requirements laid out in our Constitution, then they can't run. E.g. a 30 year old will never be elected President no matter if all 360 million of us voted for him or her - our votes simply don't matter if the Constitution is violated.
I know Trump supporters don't agree with that notion (at least they won't agree with it and will dodge the issue) but that is the law.Both Trump and Biden are qualified to run.
I don't think so. It should be obvious to even the casual observer that Trump engaged in an insurrection, which disqualifies him - a trial and CO Supreme Court review established that. The U.S. Supreme Court just has to agree.
If the Conservatives on the bench don't play politics, then it is my opinion that they will side with Colorado.'The US Supreme Court just has to agree' to Calorado? Doesn't the US supreme court has an initiative mind set?
Even in victory, Lying Trump continues to be, well, an insulting liar. He "won" by half the amount of what the polls showed and he lied and insulted his way through a "victory" speech which sounded more like his standard "grievance" speech.
In the process of insulting Nikki's cloths, this wannabe Putin-style dictator that some on this forum want to put back in the White House so that he can complete the destruction of America, he pulled out his normal set of LIES.
* "They" used Covid to cheat in the 2020 election. - A LIE
* Biden "won by a whisker" in 2020 - A LIE, Biden won by more than what Lying Trump called an overwhelming victory in 2020.
* He claims Democrats want to "raise taxes by four" - A LIE,
* Lying Trump said "You know we won New Hampshire three times now three. We win it every time. We win the primary. We win the generals." - A LIE. Hillary beat him and Biden beat him. He has won the two Republican primaries though. That is called "denialism".
* Lying Trump said "in the Republican primary, they accepted Democrats to vote." - MISLEADING TO A LIE. Registered Democrats may not vote in the Republican primary in New Hampshire.
Now say it with me - "Lying Trump is a Liar", and repeat.Justice is still on course. The Supreme Court will decide that.
Those who deny Trump's crimes are too "pot committed" to backdown now. (Poker reference) Save your time, energy and typing skills for more productive endeavors. When a person can't tell the difference between a minor flaw and a major crime, there is no point trying to make them see the difference.
The good news is there are fewer of them during each election. Trump came in second by three million votes, then seven million. Third time's the charm? Not likely.The only reason I engage is to continue to bat down the lies and present the truth. I agree, you can't change the mind of brainwashed cult members. I am sure they are all very nice people outside of politics, but it is clear they are willing to drink Lying Trump's kook-aid.
I have to ask of the Trump supporters here - Is there ANYTHING Lying Trump could do that would cost him your vote??
Obviously this list of FACTS is not enough:
* A serial liar who has no peer in the political world, past or present.
* Found liable for the felony crime of Sexual Battery (considered rape by many)
* Found liable for felony bank fraud
* Twice impeached for Good Cause but only to be let off by partisan politics.
* Been found, after a trial, that he engaged in an insurrection
* Been responsible for hundreds of thousands of needless Covid deaths
* Under investigation or indicted for a multitude of serious federal and state crimes.
* And the other day Lying Trump said he wants to use our military to clean up the inner cities.
* Been diagnosed by multiple mental health professionals to be dangerously mentally ill
I'll stop there, you get my point. THIS is the man that you think is fit to be president of the United States.
I ask you to pull your heads out of the sand and look around.
But back to my initial question - Is there anything Lying Trump could do that would cost him your vote?I think many are voting this time around out of fear that we are watching our Nation collapse under poor Governance. Some view fear as more scary than hate. I couldn't care who the Republicans run, I am fueled by fear... Not about to watch America become unreconcilable.
Sharlee: What is more detrimental for the country is indifference. When people quit caring to participate or are no longer knowledgeable of what is really going on, it allows people like Trump to gain even more power.
I hate to say this, but that is what happened in NAZI Germany. People looked the other way during the holocaust. They became indifferent to what was happening to the Jews. They knew what was going on in their cities and towns They just didn't care because they wanted to Make Germany Great Again after it was decimated after WWI and they believed Hitler was the one who could do it for them.
The same thing is happening in Israel right now with Netanyahu and the Palestinians. The Israeli people are looking the other way as Bibi has said he has no plans for a two state solution.
Trump supporters are looking the other way as he talks about becoming a dictator. By the time he is elected president, we will all be so tired of hearing about him and his plans, he will just be able to do what he wants with the country and its people and nobody will care until it is too late.
That is what is happening with Jan. 6 and all his indictments and charges. They could care less, and that is they way he wants it. If and when he gets elected, most of the country will have forgotten about what he has done by not being able to accept losing a fair and square election and all his other charges.And they are looking the other way for the same reasons Jim Jones' cult looked the other way as they drank his poisoned Kool-Aid.
I left out lying Trump's Evangelical base that he has brainwashed. They could care less about his immorality that you think would be the bedrock of their religion. They simply are indifferent and look the other way. It's as if he is their Charlemagne and he has put them on a crusade.
The only people voting the way you suggest are MAGA or MAGA adjacent.
The majority of people will be voting because they like what Biden has done in bringing America back from the disaster Lying Trump left it in or those who are scared to death that Lying Trump will finish the destruction he started in his first term.
Lying Trump goes back to court today. It is determining how much MORE he will have to pay for his MAGA approved DEFAMATION of E. Gene Carroll than the original $5 million that was awarded. That JURY found Lying Trump liable for defamation and the MAGA-approved Sexual Battery. (I say MAGA-Approved because they are defending him for it and voting for a sexual batterer to be their president.)
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.html"(I say MAGA-Approved because they are defending him for it and voting for a sexual batterer to be their president.)"
As did anyone who voted for Joe Biden. I my view. I listen to all women that claim they were raped, I don't distinguish truth due to my political view. However, you have a right to exhibit your view.Are you implying that we can determine guilt or innocence before evidence is brought into a court of law? I don't think that any of us could accurately begin to understand the Tara R. Case. Thus far it has only been tried in the press, the court of public opinion and that in my book is not a great way to determine someone's guilt or innocence of rape.
I had that same thought. She has clearly determined Biden as guilty as Trump, despite no trial on the matter. Now that is partisanship at its finest.
I don't think that any of us could accurately begin to understand the Tara R. Case. Thus far it has only been tried in the press, the court of public opinion and that in my book is not a great way to determine someone's guilt or innocence of rape."
I shared my perspective on the two women's accusations, emphasizing that I listen to all women who claim they were raped without letting my political views influence my judgment.
I also highlighted that, according to DC law, Tara Reide did not have the opportunity to bring her claim to a court of law.
Regarding public opinion and my values, I am open to respecting all women who come forward with sexual abuse allegations. I believe it's fair to consider such claims while also acknowledging the possibility of false accusations. However, it's important to listen and maintain an open-minded approach.
The question arises: would it be fair to judge either woman or determine Biden's innocence solely based on the case not being heard due to DC law? I don't believe splitting hairs is fitting in this scenario. Tara did not get a day in court, so should her allegations be dismissed? Not in my view.Didn't say they should be. All I said is, unlike Carroll, Reade's veracity is in question by those who knew her. We are not talking about "day in court". We are talking about whether her claim is as believable as Carroll's was.
If Carroll had people who knew her come out and say (giving reasons like they did with Reade) that her claim should be doubted (before the trial, of course) then I would look at her the same way I do Reade.
You can turn a blind I to verifiable information, but I can't.Again I believe both women--- to be blunt, I don't care what you think at this point.
Reide had a call where her mother called the Larry King show just after she claimed Biden sexually abused her, and well a neighbor she shared the accusations with.
Think whatever you please. You don't seem to understand, I have come to not respect your views, due to becoming accustomed to feeling your views are very biased.
I don't think I could be more upfront at this point.Personally, I like to keep my head out of the sand and view the world as it is.
Yet another example of how Mentally Ill Lying Trump is.
"In victory, Trump loses it" (who does that?)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/24/opinions … index.htmlI am still trying to get over Stepin Fetchet, Tim Scott, for so shamelessly groveling before Trump. You notice how Trump emphasized how Scott turned on Haley to endorse him?
I had to note that the late Coin Powell, Condelezza Rice and Michael Steele, considered conservatives, would not touch today's Republican Party with a ten foot pole.
No Surprise Here
"GOP senators seethe as Trump blows up delicate immigration compromise"
Biden and the Democrats are doing everything they can to solve the crisis at the border, but Republicans are having nothing to do with it. It appears Republicans are determined to, as Trump said recently, to make worse in order to have a campaign issue. Sickening, if you ask me.
First, Republicans have been inviting asylum seekers to the border by promising that it is open (when it is not).
Now, they want to make it worse there by killing the bi-partisan deal a few honest Republicans and the Democrats have put together.
I just don't understand why Republicans and Trump supporters are so dead set on making things worse at the border. Can someone educate me?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics … index.htmlPerhaps you might want to add a bit of what you found positive in the bill. Perhaps it could in the long run be more harmful in several aspects. I have not located the bill... Surprise surprise. I would like to understand what's in this bill before chatting about it.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/442 … rder-deal/You haven't located it because REPUBLICAN Senator hasn't published it yet BECAUSE it is not finished yet, surprise, surprise.
I know what Mitch McConnell and other REPUBLICAN Senators say the bill contains and I know Mitch McConnell and other REPUBLICAN Senators think it is a good bi-partisan deal. But here, WITHOUT READING THE BILL, Lying Trump comes along and effectively turns over Ukraine to his friend Putin and leaving Israel and South Korea hanging by wanting a campaign issue. I am not making that up, that is what he has told people.
It's very simple. Lying Trump and his cohorts want Biden to fail. Therefore, they are sabotaging the bill.
That was one of the thoughts I expressed here recently. Firstly, many Republicans are hesitant to provide significant support to Ukraine. Some argue that the proposed bill exacerbates the welcoming stance Biden initially extended, encouraging migration. Secondly, as you pointed out, they intend to use this issue against Joe until the November elections. Some are frustrated that Joe didn't address the problem adequately during his 3.5 years in office and are reluctant to give him positive points for his campaign. Politics, as usual, operates in both directions.
Does this shock you? Hey, we are headed to a presidential election, all the dirt and ugly will surface. It is sure to be a very bumpy ride.You said "Some are frustrated that Joe didn't address the problem adequately during his 3.5 years in office ..."
And I am ROFL because you refuse to admit that it is the REPUBLIANS who are blocking ANY progress on the border. Not only do Republicans ENCOURAGE migrants to come to our border by CONSTANTLY LYING about it being open, REPUBLICANS, and Republicans ONLY are blocking any legislative solution. So look to your own house for the culprit and don't blame Biden.Just being reported --- "FIRST ON FOX: A Republican lawmaker on the House Homeland Security Committee is introducing legislation to defund sanctuary cities, as he takes aim at liberal mayors and governors who he says are hypocritically demanding taxpayer money to help them with the effects of the migrant crisis.
The "No Funding for Sanctuary Cities Act" is being introduced by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, and would amend federal law so that any jurisdiction that blocks federal immigration enforcement would be ineligible for a range of federal law enforcement grants and any other grant
administered by the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice.
It would also require the DHS secretary to report to Congress how many states and localities are not complying with federal immigration enforcement. It says that any funds that are withdrawn from sanctuary jurisdictions can be diverted to those that are in compliance."
Once again --- Firstly, it is very obvious that Republicans are hesitant to provide significant support to boost anything that would help the Dems in the next election. Just unwilling to take that bright hot light off the mess he has caused at the border, and around the Nation. This latest report shows they are ready to turn up the heat.
In my view, I am and have been concerned that taxpayers' money is being overly used to welcome millions of illegal migrants into America. I would rather see my tax dollars help Americans who need help, including the mentally ill, homeless, and those who live in severe poverty, and improve our education system to benefit our society.
I will share - I am fully on board with Make America Great! So I say bring it on Republicans, bring it on... Dems are a day late and a buck short on the Border.If Texas prefers to ship migrants around the country at its own taxpayers expense then it logically follows that the federal money Texas receives for its border operations should follow the migrants it's shipping around.
But what about smaller government LOL? Almost everything that comes out of MAGA politicians mouths these days os yet another scheme to centralize Federal power.
"I would rather see my tax dollars help Americans who need help, including the mentally ill, homeless, and those who live in severe poverty, and improve our education system to benefit our society".
Agreed, but those are generally
areas Democrats actually do address. But what's MAGA'S platform in those areas? When I listen to Trump speak I hear him talk a lot about himself, his grievances and first for revenge but I never really hear him talk about policy of any sort. I'll also throw in, how does he plan to deal with America's addiction problem? Even in terms of the border, a multitude of Republican senators are telling him that if he were president he would not secure a better deal than what is being considered currently. He wouldn't have the 60 votes.
In reality, if Trump ended up in the white house again, I not sure he would be able to pass any of his extreme agenda due to the razor thin margins and the division between MAGA and the Republicans. But I guess that's why he's running on a enacting a dictatorship.
Sabotaging the country. Which is just more evidence that Trump will put himself ahead of what is good for the country, every time.
Val, are you taken aback by the Republicans' determined effort to reclaim the White House? They've identified a significant issue that they're using as a powerful tool. Politics has escalated into a full-fledged battle, and the Republicans are entering the fray with strong tactics. Consequently, we find ourselves in a divided country fueled, in my perception, by intense animosity. Do you think this will lessen with 2024 facing us all?
Just noted this report --- Looks like Trump wants to fight fire with fire
"Former President Donald Trump on Thursday gave his backing to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott amid the latter’s feud with the Biden administration over border security — urging states to send their National Guards to the border and promising to work "hand in hand" with the state to combat the "invasion" if he is inaugurated again in January 2025.
In posts to Truth Social, Trump backed Abbott and accused President Biden of "fighting to tie the hands" of the Republican governor "so that the Invasion continues unchecked."
A feud that has been bubbling for months between Texas and the administration exploded in recent weeks after Texas seized the Shelby Park area of Eagle Pass and blocked Border Patrol from entering — sparking protests and threats of legal action from the administration.
The Supreme Court this week found in the administration's favor when it granted an emergency appeal to allow agents to keep cutting border wire set up by Texas along the border, after a lower court had blocked the administration from doing so."
Abbott this week cited a "right to self-defense" and noted he has already declared an "invasion" to invoke the authority, which he calls "the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary."
Trump said that Abbott must be given ‘full support" and encouraged "all willing states to deploy their guards to Texas to prevent the entry of illegals and to remove them back across the border."
So, will Abbott make a stand? This is an American Governor who appears to be saying -- the buck stops here.The MAGA wing of the House is doing what it always has done to solve the nation's problems - nothing. Meanwhile, the adults in the Senate and the Democrats are willing to discuss bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems. At this point, the blaming of Biden for the border will only be a MAGA talking point, as the rest of the nation can see that it is certain subservient members of the republican party, and not Biden, who is failing to solve the problem.
And no, I think the animosity only grows as you have around 25% of the country living in an alternate reality. One where their party only loses by fraud; sky-high GDP, low unemployment, and record highs in the stock market equals a bad economy; and their party leader is an innocent victim who didn't rape a woman, try to obstruct justice to hoard the nation's most sensitive secrets, or try to illegally overturn a free and fair election. When you're trying to reason with that many irrational people, it's bound to fail. And when the 25% continues to see failures to regain power and are thwarted by the 75% living in actual reality, they will just continue their trend towards violence and incarceration."They've identified a significant issue that they're using as a powerful tool. " - EXACTLY!! Your team would rather keep migrants flowing across the border than come up with a solution. Biden is doing his best to compromise and the Republicans are giving him the middle finger.
So please, when you blame somebody for the problems at the border, blame the Republicans."They've identified a significant issue that they're using as a powerful tool. " - EXACTLY!! Your team would rather keep migrants flowing across the border than come up with a solution."
I find this very funny ---
How on earth can anyone, and I mean anyone, find the slightest justification for Biden's failure to address the border crisis? Instead of taking corrective measures, he seems to be actively encouraging people to make the journey. His initial bill is nothing short of comical, and any informed American who reads it would likely find it amusing. I hope some individuals here take the time to review it and share in the amusement. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … on-system/
His proposals are certainly inviting to just about anyone who hopes to walk over our border.
In my opinion, it's time for Joe to acknowledge that his belated political maneuver is painfully transparent and, for lack of a better word, silly. "We the people" are increasingly fed up with conventional politicians.
Time for Joe to now pay the piper for his lack of problem-solving on our border.
More directly, Lying Trump has been In recent weeks, Trump has been lobbying Republicans both in private conversations and in public statements on social media to oppose the border compromise being delicately hashed out in the Senate, according to GOP sources familiar with the conversations – in part because he wants to campaign on the issue this November and doesn’t want President Joe Biden to score a victory in an area where he is politically vulnerable.
Let's go over the characteristics of the MAGA choice to lead America.
HE MUST BE:
* A Proven Liar
* A Convicted Sexual Batterer
* A Convicted Defrauder
* A Convicted Fraudster
* An Obvious Xenophobe
* An Obvious Racist
* An Obvious Misogynist
* Responsible For Hundreds Of Thousand Of American Deaths Through Terrible Policy
* Responsible For Trying To Keep The Crisis At The Border A Crisis
* Twice Impeached
* A Loser
* A Failed Former President
* Indicted For The GA RICO Act And Election Interference
* Indicted For Mishandling America's Secrets
* Indicted For What Is Insurrection-Adjacent
* Under Investigation For Criminal Bank Fraud
* A Bully
* A Sexist
* A Wannabe Putin-Style Dictator
* Willing To Use The Presidency To Exact Revenge On His Enemies (reweaponizing the DOJ)
* And the list goes on and on.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/politics … index.html
Great Choice Guys and Gals - you must really hate America to wish that on us.This is next:
Mitch McConnell reportedly told his caucus this week that "the politics have changed" and Trump doesn't want any legislative action on the border in order to keep it as an election issue for him and it wouldn't be prudent to "undermine" him. Some senators said they didn't hear it exactly that way but it's pretty clear that's exactly what happened."
Are there any depths that that man would not descend to.....
The Republicans have morphed into a fascist cult under control of one man, is anyone listening?
And they want to blame Democrats for everything, right.....
"People are dumb"
(Dutch Schultz 1935)Lying Trump is like a used car salesman selling a piece of crap car and people are buying it. Here is Rachel Maddow debunking his victory speech in New Hampshire. (if you can stand listening to him).
https://youtu.be/xzQptsGUo3c?si=LEONu_UBDvEhEch6Few more pertinent issues to add to the thing the list -- No wars for us taxpayers to support; a border that was seemingly (due to stats) under better control with cooperation from Mexico; improvement in our economy (until world worldwide pandemic hit) and stats that show inflation under control as Trump left the White House. Charts are a very good source
Today --- Currently, the average 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage is 6.60% as of January 18, according to Freddie Mac
2020 saw new lows for mortgage rates, with the 30-year fixed rate diving to just under 3 percent, according to Bankrate data, and averaging 3.38 percent for the year. A
2019 pre-pandemic interest rate on buying a home in 2019 was 4.51%
Consumer Price Index for Food
The all-items Consumer Price Index (CPI), a measure of economy-wide inflation, decreased 0.1 percent from November 2023 to December 2023 and was up 3.4 percent from December 2022. The CPI for all food increased 0.1 percent from November 2023 to December 2023, and food prices were 2.7 percent higher than in December 2022.
The level of food price inflation varies depending on whether the food was purchased for consumption at home or away from home:
The food-at-home (grocery store or supermarket food purchases) CPI decreased 0.1 percent from November 2023 to December 2023 and was 1.3 percent higher than December 2022; and
The food-away-from-home (restaurant purchases) CPI increased 0.3 percent in December 2023 and was 5.2 percent higher than December 2022.
In 2023, food prices increased by 5.8 percent. Food-at-home prices increased by 5.0 percent, while food-away-from-home prices increased by 7.1 percent. While prices increased in 2023 for all food categories tracked by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS) except for pork, prices grew more slowly in 2023 than in 2022 for all categories. Fats and oils had the largest average price increase (9.0 percent) between 2022 and 2023, followed by sugar and sweets (8.7 percent), cereals and bakery products (8.4 percent), and processed fruits and vegetables (8.0 percent). Pork prices declined 1.2 percent in 2023, and several categories grew more slowly than their historical average rate, including fish and seafood (increased by 0.3 percent in 2023), fresh fruits (0.7 percent), fresh vegetables (0.9 percent), eggs (1.4 percent), and beef and veal (3.6 percent).
Food prices are expected to continue to decelerate in 2024. In 2024, all food prices are predicted to increase 1.3 percent, with a prediction interval of -1.4 to 4.2 percent. Food-at-home prices are predicted to decrease 0.4 percent, with a prediction interval of -4.5 to 4.0 percent, and food-away-from-home prices are predicted to increase 4.7 percent, with a prediction interval of 3.1 to 6.2 percent."
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ … -findings/
Car price trends
At the beginning of the past decade, average new car prices increased less than 3% annually until the COVID-19 pandemic began. Between 2019 and 2020, prices rose 5%. Then, average new car prices spiked — by 17.2% — between 2020 and 2021. Similarly, the average car payment for new vehicles rose 11.8% to $644 in 2021.
Used cars are following similar trends as new vehicles. Average monthly car payments on used vehicles rose 18.2% over the same period to $488.
According to the 2023 US Auto Insurance Study from J.D. Power, 31% of car insurance companies operating in the US enacted a rate increase this past year. Overall, the industry reported an average price increase of 15.5% while some states, like Florida, saw rates rise as much as 88% over the past year. https://finance.yahoo.com/personal-fina … st%20year.
So to sum it up --- It seems one had a wonderful job performance keeping the Country on a somewhat even footing.
Now Joe -- I think mist recognize the problems that he caused, and could not handle.
So, I say, I love America, I want to see America thrive, and not fail due to just not facing some facts about who can do the job of running America better. I feel confident due to the polls the majority have woken up to come to realize we need a problem solver in the job, not a problem maker.May be Ex-President 'real' Donald Trump, is the man? God save America!
In my view, the United States has endured a challenging period over the last 3.5 years, marked by ineffective governance. In my opinion, the current administration has made questionable decisions that have led the country astray. There seemed to be a lack of foresight regarding the potential harm of certain policies, particularly in the aftermath of a pandemic crisis. President Biden entered office with a forceful approach, overlooking existing issues and, in the process, creating unnecessary challenges for the American people with unwise policies. Many citizens felt that his priorities did not align with their immediate concerns, with issues like green deals and social programs taking precedence over addressing pressing matters such as economic inflation.
Despite the setbacks, Americans have a means of course correction through their votes. Every four years, we have the opportunity to steer the nation in the right direction. Our history reflects our resilience, as we consistently strive to improve. Although we may face stumbling blocks, we do not lose hope and instead persevere. The majority will ultimately have a resounding voice, and we endure the challenges, knowing that in four years, we can make another attempt to shape the future.
Sometimes a bull in a china shop can be fundamental at fixing all that has been broken. I certainly for one, am not ready to give Biden or a Demacrat four more years. I think we are at a crossroads that we have never had to even consider before, a very dangerous path that would harm all we as a nation have built and had great respect for in our history.
SharNice gross generalizations. I especially like this metaphor: "Sometimes a bull in a china shop can be fundamental at fixing all that has been broken."
I like the way Trumpers can rationalize Lying Trump's negatives into positives. That's called taking a crisis and turning it into an opportunity...very nice indeed.This is just my perspective. I continue to stay on the periphery, observing from the outside. While it's challenging, and the challenges are increasing, I've discovered a sense of pride in maintaining my distance from the mainstream crowds.
I put a lot of thought into my comment, and feel it truly expresses my views. Yours has been noted, and always respected.
Shar, thank you. I pray that every right thinking adult American exercise their franchise, come November 2024.
I can understand Trump is the question. The adult voting population of MAGA isn't sufficient to put or impost Trump in the White House. Americans has to choice and decide the best candidate.
The problem is even if Trump loses the election, he will not accept that he lost. That is what he did with Biden when he won the election fair and square. Trump created an insurrection and tried to change the voting slate with fake electors that showed him winning the election. Many Americans are afraid he will do that again in this coming election.
Donald Trump? Has he not conceded to election defeat before? If at this November election, he fail to accept defeat to whosoever get the shut to the White House's Oval Office, I'll consider him as a pinochio, given over to all lies. God save America!
Trump's getting a little lighter in the wallet...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-legal- … 15022.htmlYeah, that 82M is what I call taking a bite out of crime. I bet that will get his attention....
$83 million here, $5 million previously, likely over $200 million in the New York Fraud trial. Someone's going to be selling off some properties. Should we pool our money and buy Mar-a-Lago when it gets auctioned off?
I am game, a fire sale!!
This is going to cost him the drawers from his funky butt. We can cut them into pieces and sell them as souvenirs and mementoes.
MAGA seems to go for that kind of stuff.Nah. He'll ask his trumpers to $ave him. And his morons will comply.
Yikes, I must laugh --- And say one thing -- This guy sure can put his money where his mouth is.
I'm not so sure he is going to put up the money. He will claim bankruptcy and try to appeal the ruling, just like Giuliani and and Alex Jones.
Michael Cohen was right, if you want to get to Trump, you do it through his bank account. He will also play the victim and attack those who oppose him. That's his MO.History has shown instances where figures like Giuliani and Alex Jones have used legal maneuvers like claiming bankruptcy and appealing rulings. Michael Cohen's insight about targeting Trump through his bank account does come from a one-time insider and rings true.
It is most certain Trump will portray himself as a victim and launch attacks against opponents and appeals. His history tells us he appeals to frequent lawsuits. One can follow a well-documented pattern in that respect.
It'll be interesting to see how this situation unfolds and whether similar patterns emerge. Not sure he will claim bankruptcy. I just don't know enough about the subject. I think he will appeal, and try to chase the case as far as he can.
The latest brief submitted to the Supreme Court supporting Trump's ban in Colorado.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ … 0Brief.pdfI read the brief last night. Interesting! With my limited expertise I assess it presents its argument quite well with historical supporting evidence. The history within the brief was intriguing as well as educational. I think they got their point across. If I can see/understand it I would think a clerk would be able to.
Yeah, it dispels the talking point about 'needing a conviction for insurrection' before being able to disqualify, which is the latest MAGA shifting of the goalposts. Considering insurrection wasn't even a law on the books back when the 14th Amendment was crafted, the historical application of the Amendment will be critical in the Colorado case.
Appeals court rules Trump not immune for his alleged crimes:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-not-im … 56012.html
This part seems like common sense:
“Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count,” they wrote.
Which goes right to the heart of one of the charged crimes by Jack Smith, violation of rights.I think it is part of Trump's delay tactics to appeal the non immunity ruling to the SCOTUS. He is hoping that will create enough delay to take him to the November election and then he will Pardon himself after being elected POTUS. I pray the Supreme Court throws him out on his a** before that.
It's important for the legal system to operate fairly and efficiently, this will ensure accountability and justice, in my view. While speculation about political maneuvers can be unsettling around this case, it's appeared thus far, our institutions designed to uphold the rule of law, are doing so. Let's hope for a swift and just resolution that respects the principles of democracy and the Constitution.
The Circuit Court Judges has well done. Trump had to face charges for his many crimes while in office. But because Ex-President Trump had commited crimes doesn't reduced him from president to 'citizen'. Trump, when impeached twice, retaindd the Presidency. When his tenure expired, he was still Ex-President Trump. Even if Trump goes to jail, he's still ex-president. D' you think late Richard Nixon become 'citizen Nixon', after he resigned from office? I see BS. Fulls stop.
Liberal pundits are thinking the Colorado challenge will be overturned by either 9-0 or 8-1.
I need to point out that while Trump beat Haley in three contests, it wasn't a mandate (which Haley puts at 90% or better). In each contest 40% of right-leaning voters (the Democratic crossover is insignificant) said NO to Trump. Many of those will NOT vote for Trump at all and some will vote for Biden.
That spells big trouble for Trump.A Fox News Voter Analysis survey of more than 2,400 South Carolina Republican primary voters also found that 6-in-10 Haley voters (59%) would not support Trump in the general election if he were the GOP nominee.
He can't win with just the base. It seems quite obvious that the base hasn't grown. And why would it? His divisive rhetoric doesn't appeal to Independents or moderate Republicans.
His voters so far are overwhelmingly white, mostly older than 50 and generally without a college degree. How is he going to win over women in the suburbs, the college educated moderates and the millennial / gen z folks?
And is this appealing to black voters...he told a group of Black conservatives that he felt his own criminal indictments gave him more credibility with Black voters. Yikes.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 750733007/Put another way, his divisive rhetoric doesn't work on those who manage to keep the information processing and thinking parts of their brains intact.
When will Trump stop lying? Now 77 million Americans will believe that Beverly Hills restricts the use of toothbrushes and showers, ROFL.
And this clown is who MAGA wants to lead our great nation. SAD.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/politics … index.htmlApparently at CPAC recently, Trump forgot his wife's name and called her Mercedes. (I wonder if that is a new mistress?) Talk about senile.
Are the college more populous than the laity? Prump or Biden are the idiots in the voters eyes.
This should make the MAGAites here smile. Trump/DeSantis's protégée in Argentina, Javier Milei, wants to first prohibit gender neutral speech in official documents and second, minimize the female gender as much as possible. I guess he is one of those barefoot and pregnant type of guys. Oh, did I mention he is far-right?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/americas … index.htmlWOW! Just heard that Trump lost his appeal to put down only a part of his $600 million is damages (all total and including interest which builds every day). He has about 30 days, less really for some of it, to come up with the money. If he doesn't, the E. Gene Carroll and the State of New York can go to the monitor of Trump Organization and tell her to come up with the cash. She has the power to sell what she needs to come up with it.
The judge did stay the part of the ruling that prohibited Trump from doing business with financial institutions associated with New York. But that probably won't help because those banks stopped lending to Trump decades ago. He has (had) two other sources, Deutsche Bank and Russian oligarchs. However, Deutsche Bank stopped doing business with Trump after he instigated the insurrection on Jan 6.
Some suggested he could get a bond. Problem there is they require 120% of the judgement in cash. That won't happen. So, other than foreign sources, where is Trump going to get the money without selling his assets (which are mortgaged to the hilt, I understand)It took a VERY long time, but Karma is finally visiting Donald Trump. He is now facing the financial ruin he has caused so, so many others.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/01/investin … index.htmlJust to remind everybody how much of a liar Lying Trump is, here is a batch from his speech at the border 2/29/24:
* "migrants as “entire columns of fighting-age men” and said “they look like warriors to me; - SINCE this means he actually saw this himself, pictures I guess, and they don't exist, this is a lie. This does fit, however, into his effort to brainwash MAGA.
* "he thinks unnamed people are allowing migrants into the country because “they’re looking for votes,”. AN obvious lie since he knows non-citizens can't and don't vote
* He speaks of the "US being “overrun” by a “new form” of crime he called “Biden migrant crime.”.. HE, of course, fails to mention two critical things: 1) migrants under HIS watch also committed murder so he should have said "Trump migrant crime" and 2) migrants commit crimes at a MUCH lower rate than native born Americans. Nevertheless, this is another example of brainwashing MAGA.
* He makes this absurd claim - “they’re coming from jails and they’re coming from prisons and they’re coming from mental institutions and they’re coming from insane asylums,” Trump added, “You know, I know many of the leaders of these other countries that are doing it.” He said moments later, “You look at the jails now – you look at the jails throughout the region but more importantly throughout the world, they’re emptying out, because they’re dumping them into the United States.” - FACTUALLY not true and part of a pattern to brainwash MAGA
* I won't bother to mention his lies about his wall that Mexico didn't pay for.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/politics … index.htmlDarn, as many on the right here would like us to believe, gaffes are signs of dementia - well, Lying Trump is showing more and more signs of dementia with yet another gaffe of CONFUSING Biden with Obama, lol.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … 0b34263aefHis slurring at the end is very troublesome. He is clearly reading off the prompter but appearing not to understand the words. Maybe that's why he goes off script so much? He is having some sort of dysfunction that he doesn't recognize words?
https://youtu.be/UkHShhTSMeA?si=j6ORJfMQnMPslZHY
Well, the SC just ruled as expected, 9 - 0 that the States don't have the authority to use Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot. Only Congress has that right.
I think the next cases that will come up is IF Lying Trump wins in November. Then they will be trying, through federal court, to stop him from taking the oath of office - maybe even after he does.Nikki Haley had a real shot of beating Biden. But instead, Republicans chose and will vote for a convicted sexual abuser, serial liar, one-term, twice impeached failed ex-president who is facing 91 felony counts.
That says a lot about the character of those voters, and none of it is good. Given their brainwashed mental state, they are probably not aware that they will be voting for the end of democracy in America and probably the world.
Putin didn't have to beat Ukraine, he just needed MAGA to side with him.
Despite the polls, I don't think there is a MAGA's chance in Hell that Trump wins. Super Tuesday proves again that there aren't enough voters in the rural areas to overcome the palpable fear of a second Trump term in the urban and suburban areas that will drive them to not to vote or vote for Biden. I suspect by this time next week we will see the polls changing in Biden's favor.This endless coup d'etat issue that's seeks to bar Ex-President Donald Trump for running as president again, but to be tried in the Courts and jailed has meet its death bed at the hands of the US Supreme Court. Thank goodness, the Dems can go to piece.
The people who want to save America are not done. The next action will be in federal court, in the unlikely event the Lying Trump wins, as they sue to prevent an insurrectionist from being sworn in to office.
It is simply not good form to have a man who attempted (hell, he succeeded for several hours) to overthrow an election should be let to lead America again.So much for accepting the will of the people in a legitimate, legal election. Assuming you represent Democrat and liberal thought such an election means nothing if you don't get your choice of candidate.
And you have the gall to complain when Trump asked for a recount.This group seems to only listen to one side, namely the Democrats. They show little regard for those who hold different views and seem indifferent to altering the Constitution to undermine the people's preferences. Have you ever seen such blatant hypocrisy in ideologies? I mean one must laugh, mustn't one?
The hypocrisy is in wanting to elect someone to safeguard our laws who is currently indicted for breaking them in four different jurisdictions, including trying to steal an American election through the use of fraud. The group that MyEso opposes sits in denial of the basic facts surrounding those criminal cases. If the people's preference is a rapist and criminal, then sane Americans should absolutely try and enforce a statute written into the Constitution to prohibit just such a candidate, and now the process for how to do that is understood.
It's Congress and Representative on behave of 'we the people' that can do that.
Only if the Constitution REQUIRES them to, and in this case IT DOES NOT.
It is sad that the Constitution allows a man found guilty in civil court for sexual abuse and fraud in another civil court to be President, but it doesn't prohibit it.
What it DOES PROHIBIT is allowing someone who swore to protect the Constitution and later broke that oath via insurrection to be President.
But it seems what the very hypocritical Conservatives (save for Barrett) on the SC will ignore the clear imperative written into the Constitution and rule that the Constitution is meaningless unless Congress writes another law. Normally, when an amendment requires the Congress to do something, it says so. In Sec 3, it does not.Your response has strayed from the core issue. While I acknowledge your strong feelings about what you perceive as Trump's faults, my original comment was focused solely on the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the removal of Trump's name from the ballot in Colorado. What I feel about keeping the choice of who we vote for in our hands. Hopefully, you realize if Congress could ever have made a law to remove candidates we would mimic communist Nations. This kind of power is dangerous, in my view. It is clear some do find giving more power to Big Government is acceptable. I am not of that mindset. I truely feel and recognize that we have a faction of Americans that are of this mindset, and in our free nation, we all have a right to our views, and to share our views. I am purely in favor of following our Constitution.
"The Supreme Court ruled that removing Trump's name from state ballots would be unconstitutional, asserting that only Congress has the authority to amend the Constitution."
"But the justices were divided about how broadly the decision would sweep. A 5-4 majority said that no state could dump a federal candidate off any ballot – but four justices asserted that the court should have limited its opinion.
A five-justice majority – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – wrote that states may not remove any federal officer from the ballot, especially the president, without Congress first passing legislation.
“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have NO POWER under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the opinion states.
“Nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates,” the majority added." https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/04/poli … index.html
Do you feel these justices' views should be disregarded?I guess it really depends on how the supreme court accepts the definition of an insurrection. They ruled Jan. 6 was not an insurrection. But they are human and look at things subjectively. So, "who is watching the watchers?" Here is what copilot says about an insurrection and Jan. 6.
The events of January 6, 2021, when a predominantly white mob stormed the U.S. Capitol after attending a Trump-headlined “Stop the Steal” rally, have sparked an ongoing and heated debate over whether to label the event as an “insurrection.”
By definition, an insurrection is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.” It is clear that the Capitol stormers dissented against the election outcome and sought to obstruct Congress’ certification of the election, which aligns with rising up against the government. However, the crux of the contention lies in whether the crowd was truly violent—an attribution that has faced resistance.
This distinction determines whether those who breached the Capitol are accurately described as “rally goers” or “rioters,” “patriots” or “terrorists,” and “peaceful protestors” or “insurrectionists.” Each label carries weight and implications. To declare the crowd as “violent” implicitly justifies state action to subdue or punish its members.
Historically, debates over terminology have centered on the difference between “riots” and “rebellions.” Interestingly, this discussion now involves the actions of predominantly white individuals, whereas in the past, it often focused on the rising up of Black people in America. Such naming conventions can significantly shape the narrative surrounding events1.
In summary, while opinions may vary, the attack on the U.S. Capitol is widely regarded as an insurrection or an attempted coup d’état due to its objective of preventing a legitimate president-elect from assuming office. The choice of words matters, as it reflects how we interpret and respond to historical events.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti … surrection
https://time.com/6137604/history-insurrection-jan-6/Very glad to see you back -- always enjoy our conversations.
It appears we're addressing two distinct matters here. While I appreciate your perspective. Regarding the events at the Capitol, while I understand the sentiment of labeling it an insurrection, I personally require more substantial evidence of a coordinated effort by a significant group to consider it as such. From what I observed, it seemed more like a spontaneous eruption instigated by a small faction at best. As for implicating Trump in any premeditated plans for violence, I believe such claims necessitate concrete evidence.
Regarding the Supreme Court decision, my understanding differs from yours. The case in question didn't revolve around Trump being accused of committing insurrection; rather, it concerned a state's attempt to remove his name from their ballot, citing the 14th Amendment. In my view, accusations of insurrection should lead to charges and a fair trial, ensuring due process. It's essential to uphold the principle of innocence until proven guilty and provide individuals the opportunity to defend themselves. Colorado's actions, in my opinion, circumvented this principle. While Trump faces indictments, he has yet to be charged with insurrection.
I believe the Supreme Court made the correct decision, adhering to constitutional principles without succumbing to political pressures. They rightly determined that Colorado lacked the authority to remove Trump from the ballot based on their interpretation of the 14th Amendment. While humans are fallible and can make mistakes, abolishing our highest court isn't the solution. Who else would safeguard our Constitution? Can we trust a divided and potentially biased Congress to handle such matters with the same diligence? The Supreme Court's adherence to constitutional principles ensures stability and fairness in our governance, a responsibility that shouldn't be entrusted to any other body.
"I guess it really depends on how the supreme court accepts the definition of an insurrection. They ruled Jan. 6 was not an insurrection. But they are human and look at things subjectively. So, "who is watching the watchers?"
Do you believe Congress possesses the capability and responsibility to address the complex issues typically handled by our highest courts? Can we trust that every member of Congress has the requisite understanding of our Constitution? Unlike the Supreme Court, which upholds the Constitution without altering it, only Congress has the authority to enact changes. Imagining the outcomes of such critical issues being handled by a divided and potentially biased Congress is concerning, to say the least.This is from the ruling of the court's summary:
In reaching its decision in Trump v. Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that Congress enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and reasoned that Section 5 grants Congress alone the authority to provide for the enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. The Court noted, however, that states retain concurrent authority to enforce Section 3 with respect to state offices.
So if a future president commits an insurrection, the state has no power to remove said person from their presidential ballot. Please correct me if I'm wrong.Correct! No one has the power to remove said person from the ballot unless Congress enacts enabling legislation. So, the Supreme Court, in it's overreach, has essentially deemed section 3 of the 14th Amendment null and void until such a time.
Age and birth place are "self-executing" under the 14th Amendment but they decided to pull section 3 out?
A narrow question was put before them and they went way beyond.
They've told us that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless of whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution.
We have an activist court.If I am not mistaken, four of the Justices disagreed with the scope of that interpretation.
Don't forget that at least three (I think) judges/justices found that Trump participated in an insurrection. At least one of them held a trial with Trump defending himself that came to that conclusion. Those are the ones I believe.
Also, the Jan 6 committee laid out clear and convincing evidence that the breach was planned in advance by the Proud Boys and other domestic terrorist groups. They also showed, with plenty of evidence, that Trump called the troops to town with the intent to disrupt the certification process.
Copilot, like Google's Gemini, is a flawed, biased, progressive program that is as factual as any and every poster in these forums.
As factual and correct as the Colorado courts.Ken: It is not an opinion. It is based on the sources listed at the end of my comments. It is better than biased opinions and it is set to give a politicly balanced response. Welcome to the 21st Century. So much in these forums is based on people's opinions without any source as to the origin of their information.
Isn't that the truth. And when asked for it, it never appears.
Where did they rule that Jan 6th was not an insurrection? It seems to me they avoided the subject altogether.
Congress does not have the power to "amend" the Constitution. They can make laws to enforce provisions in the Constitution that require the Congress to act, but they can't amend it.
Did the SC rule correctly? Probably so, although I wish they hadn't.
It was actually a 9 - 0 ruling that the Colorado SC erred in their ruling. What was 5 - 4, was how broadly they applied their ruling. The 3 liberal judges and Justice Barrett felt the other Conservatives ruled too broadly. They said court's opinion decided more than what was necessary to resolve the case by specifying that Section 3 can be enforced only through federal legislation. To me that means they think the rest of the Conservatives wanted to prevent Trump from being disqualified in the event he won in November.
Given the fact that four Justices disagreed, it is that part of the ruling that needs to be tested in court if America makes a mistake and elects the criminal.
Isn't it hypocrisy for the once and former "law and order" party to ignore the constitutional prohibition against allowing an insurrectionist to hold office once they broke their oath to protect America? As I pointed out to Wilderness, the Constitution just isn't words on a piece of paper, it is the Law.
And if you are advocating seating a man found to be an insurrectionist by several courts of law, aren't you advocating breaking the law?
I thought you were for following the law. You do know that the Constitution is law, don't you? The highest one. And IT says an insurrectionist can't hold office if they once swore an oath to protect America and broke it like Trump did.
So, to paraphrase your comment - "so much for abiding by the law"
Show me were I (or a majority of Democrats) complained when he asked for a recount. Are you making that up or are you thinking about when he asked for the third recount of the same vote?
WOW!!! You remember Trump's doctor that supposedly gave him a clean bill of health. Captain (now representative) Ronnie Jackson? Notice I said "Captain" and not "Rear Admiral". It seems the Navy investigated him and found him unbecoming an officer by being a drunk and abuser. They demoted him.
That means he is lying about his rank on his official gov't website where he says he is a Retired Rear Admiral. He is not, he is a retired Captain.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics … index.htmlThe Supreme Court of the US has nolify the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court. Thank the heavens. Now Ex-President Trump can run on the ballot of any State as a presidential candidate. The USA supreme court also held Congress to enact law that would specifically bar future re-occurance of such challenges. Game over?
Lying Trump puts up $92 million bond. Boy, that must hurt.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/08/politics … index.htmlFor those who keep lying about it. Yes, there were guns.
Trump supporter charged with firing a gun during the Jan. 6 Capitol attack
WASHINGTON — A Donald Trump enthusiast who appeared to fire two gunshots at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was arrested by federal authorities on Friday.
NBC News identified John Emanuel Banuelos two years ago as the man in photos and video footage who appeared to be flashing a gun in his waistband as he fought officers on Jan. 6, 2021.
Last month, Jan. 6 rioter Derrick Evans, who is now running in a Republican House primary in West Virginia, published previously unseen video that appeared to show that Banuelos actually fired his weapon twice outside the Capitol that day.
Despite repeated false claims from conservative media figures that the mob that stormed the Capitol was unarmed, a multitude of defendants were armed with deadly or dangerous weapons, including several who carried firearms, as the Justice Department has proven in court. Among Jan. 6 rioters who were proven to have carried firearms during the Capitol attack are Christopher Alberts, who was sentenced to seven years in prison; Mark Mazza, who carried two guns and was sentenced to five years in federal prison; and Guy Reffitt, who was sentenced to seven years in federal prison after he became the first Jan. 6 defendant to go to trial.
Another Jan. 6 participant, Jerod Bargar, dropped his gun in the mob and was recently sentenced to five years of probation, with six months of home confinement. The officer who recovered Bargar’s weapon on the ground was “aware of multiple reports of firearms in the crowd,” according to prosecutors.
While numerous rioters were armed with guns on Jan. 6, none were known to have actually fired their weapons; Banuelos is the first to be charged with doing so. The shots he allegedly fired outside the Capitol came at 2:34 p.m., which is about 10 minutes before Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot as she breached a window leading into the Speaker's Lobby. That means it was a member of the pro-Trump mob — not law enforcement — that fired the first gunshot of the day.
The FBI affidavit said that the footage published by Evans, as well as CCTV footage highlighted by NBC News last month, showed Banuelos "raising the gun over his head, and, at approximately 2:34 p.m., firing two shots into the air."
Yep, a gun is not a flag pole which cannot injure someone as some here claim.
No one here have claim a gun can't injure (or kill) a person. Or am I the only one here? Grant the fact that a gun was fired, it was not aimed at any person. Still it was a dangerous thing to do. But I've noted that the mob at the Capitol on January 6, are not all for Ex-President Trump.
1. You note wrong, other than police those were all Trump's army that broke into the Capital.
2. I am guessing the translation program you are using can make things confusing. You are right, no one here claims guns can't kill or injure. They claim two things, however, 1) no guns were there and 2) flag poles can't injure or kill.Trump's Army?...is a bad rendering of a read. Trump's mob is safe reading. As for the translation I use? None.
An organized "mob" is an army. That was no "mob" that broke into the Capitol to stop the certification of an election, You can sugarcoat it all you want, they had a plan, they knew what they were doing, they were armed and dangerous, and they executed that plan.
Excuted a plan? These days, it seems we're not concrete with our thoughts. Legally, the mob or 'Trump's Army' as you put it 'attemp' a coup d'atet, and yet it failed. Otherise, Trump would have had ursurp power as president again. But it wasn't realized. Seriously, all the lower Courts Trump was put to trial had doubts to convicted him fully of 'insurrection'. The exception is the Supreme Court of the USA. The upper court has not agree Trump attemp a court. It put him on the ballot of all. States. How 'sugarcoat' I'm here? Sweet or bitter to you?
It seems to me the the first two statements are non sequitur.
The lower court in Colorado found Trump committed an insurrection
The Supreme Court in Colorado affirmed that decision
The Supreme Court in Illinois found Trump committed an insurrection
(I think that constitutes all the courts that said Trump participated in an insurrection.)
The Jan 6 committee found Trump committed an insurrection
Trump was impeached and came three votes shy in an extremely partisan Senate of being found guilty of committing an insurrection
Didn't America see that Trump committed an insurrection with our own eyes and ears. According to a poll right after the insurrection, 70+ percent of Americans thought Trump bore at least some responsibility (which means he participated, doesn't it?). The other 30% are part of his cult, it would seem.
Didn't The Supreme Court of the United States avoid the issue altogether?.
How much more do you need (a criminal conviction is not needed).
Why does an insurrection have to succeed to be an insurrection? They actually did succeed for a few hours.
Here is an excellent article from a very religious, conservative Black man about Biden and Trump. It is how he felt in 2022.
For whatever reason, he thinks Trump would have been a better president that Biden but then goes on to relate a bunch of reasons he does not want to vote for Trump again, even though he was inclined to at that point in time. He gave Biden four years to win him over.
Spoiler Alert - He thinks America won with Biden, but not for the reasons you might think. While I probably disagree with 95% of his views, I can agree with this reasoning.
https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/ … or-AmericaI come away with the same opinion that you have, thanks for sharing.....
He wrote "I am a Conservative Republican. I love our philosophy of independence and power from united efforts to support each other with hard work and honoring traditions and heritage. "
What he doesn't realize is that that is what liberals and moderates love as well. In stating it the way he does implies that we don't.
I might also disagree with what he is implying with his "power from a united effort". That is a decidedly unConservative philosophy.
Chairman Loudermilk Publishes Never-Before Released Anthony Ornato Transcribed Interview
March 8, 2024
WASHINGTON - Today, Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released a transcribed interview the January 6 Select Committee conducted with President Trump's former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato, which shows President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital.
The interview also shows White House frustration with slow deployment of assistance. The Select Committee conducted this interview in January of 2022, but never released it.
Following Mollie Hemingway's reporting, Chairman Loudermilk released the following statement:
“The former J6 Select Committee apparently withheld Mr. Ornato’s critical witness testimony from the American people because it contradicted their pre-determined narrative," said Chairman Loudermilk. "Mr. Ornato's testimony proves what Mr. Meadows has said all along, President Trump did in fact offer 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol, which was turned down.
"This is just one example of important information the former Select Committee hid from the public because it contradicted what they wanted the American people to believe. And, this is exactly why my investigation is committed to uncovering all the facts, no matter the outcome.”
Click here to read Ornato's full transcribed interview.
Original reporting by Mollie Hemmingway in The Federalist reveals the January 6 Select Committee suppressed exonerating testimony of President Trump's push for the National Guard on January 6, 2021. The Select Committee falsely claimed they had "no evidence" to support Trump officials' claims the White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops. Ornato's interview proves this was false.
Source Full transcript of Ornato https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/3/b/ … ato-ti.pdf
A January 6 committee staffer asked Ornato, “When it comes to the National Guard statement about having 10,000 troops or any other number of troops, do you recall any discussion prior to the 6th about whether and how many National Guard troops to deploy on January 6th?” Ornato surprised the committee by noting he did recall a conversation between Meadows and Bowser: “He was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed,” Ornato told investigators.
Meadows “wanted to know if she need any more guardsmen,” Ornato testified. “And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, ‘The president wants to make sure that you have enough.’ You know, ‘He is willing to ask for 10,000.’ I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it. And that she was all set. She had, I think it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time.” Ornato was correct. Bowser declined the offer, asking only for a few hundred National Guard and requiring them to serve in a very limited capacity.
Bowser’s decision to decline help from the White House did not end the Trump team’s efforts to secure troops ahead of the protest. When the D.C. mayor declined Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops, Ornato said the White House requested a “quick reaction force” out of the Defense Department in case it was needed.
Once the Capitol was breached, the Trump White House pushed for immediate help from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and grew frustrated at the slow deployment of that help, according to the testimony. “So then I remember the chief saying, ‘Hey, I’m calling secretary of defense to get that [quick reaction force] in here,” Ornato said. Later he said, “And then I remember the chief telling Miller, ‘Get them in here, get them in here to secure the Capitol now.'”
Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.
I would assume this evidence will be presented during the Jack Smith trial.
Other sources https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/08/ex … nal-guard/
https://www.aol.com/jan-6-committee-all … 04704.htmlOK, now we have one guy saying this and half-dozen others contradicting him.
Nevertheless, this story needs to develop to get to the truth of the matter.Okay and agreed. But are not these contradictions seems as 'double speak'? A judge will have nerve wrecking experience in analyzing such a talk to get to the root of the truth. If I was a defense advocte, I would have had plead that that the interview testimony be consign to the paper waste basket, to save the Judges health.
You might be right, but it was under oath. There is a very real possibility Ornato committed perjury or; the others did, I don't think you can have both be true at the same time.
Doesn't it seem like this "Sen" Britt is learning well from Lying Trump. Her first major speech and she LIES. She also appeared to to do another Trumpian thing, used other people's suffering for political purposes. At least so says the victim she was talking about.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics … index.htmlJust another to be sacrificed at the altar of Trump..when will these folks learn? Involvement with Trump seems to generally end careers or send people to jail.
She was highly misleading in her telling of the trafficking story. Let's hope her voters hold her accountable.It is a continuation of what a Republican strategist wrote about in Everything Trump Touches Dies (shouldn't there be a comma between Touches and Dies?). It was a good read.
BTW, Peter Navarro shows up for jail in 8 days.Do you feel sex trafficking has gotten worse in the past 3.5 years or has it improved in regards to stats? Do you find it a growing problem, does it concern you?
I like charts, they give a stark look at stats.I would like to see it from say 2000.
This must be from Lying Fox using a NYT chart. Notice how they mislead you by pointing out falsely the Sen Harris, all by her lonesome, stopped ICE from arresting criminal sponsors of UAC. Didn't know she had the authority.
You know who did? Lying Trump did.This is a great example of how charts can deceive. One must be careful in looking at it (like I was not until now) and notice the scale.
A proper scale should be 1 to 100 or 1 to 1000 in order to make a more useful comparison as to the severity.My source is The New York Times. If you feel they presented misinformation, take it up with them. The article has nothing to do with Fox News. The article is riveting and gives a good example of the horrible problem of migrant trafficking. that over the past few years has become a true crisis.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/us/p … ;smtyp=curJust as I thought, that chart you published is not the chart in your link. The NYT chart does not have those misleading bubbles on it. How did they get there?
I also noticed this is old, outdated news.
I'm puzzled as to why you've joined this discussion. I shared the chart for a singular purpose: to highlight the surge in "reports of migrant abuse and neglect" and "reports of trafficking" under Biden's administration. It's a straightforward point with no ulterior motive. The article from The Times delves deeply into the crisis of trafficking under Biden's leadership, which underscores my argument. The chart, readily available in various articles and on social media, strongly supports my stance. The New York Times piece is meticulously researched and effectively portrays the escalating trafficking crisis in recent years.
At any rate, I have no interest in debating my view. The chart and the NYT article speak loudly to my view.It might have done that if the chart you presented wasn't a doctored version of the one in the article and you had pointed out the misleading scale.
BTW, other articles I looked at to verify that chart indicates, as I showed, that most of the increase for the time period of the story was in Trump's term. There is no debate.
Referred Prosecuted Convicted
2011 1,360 729 464
2012 1,519 805 578
2013 1,893 1,030 616
2014 1,619 1,051 725
2015 1,923 1,049 769
2016 1,974 1,093 771
2017 1,926 1,163 790
2018 1,920 1,107 777
2019 2,091 1,235 837
2020 2,198 1,343 658
2021 2,027 1,672 809
Percent change, 2011–2021 49.0% 129.4% 74.4%
Percent change, 2020–2021 -7.8% 24.5% 22.9%
DOJ doesn't have data published yet for 2022 and 2023
Looks like referrals and prosecutions rose throughout the Trump years and convictions also rose except for 2020.
Referrals fell in the first year of Biden's term while prosecutions jumped.
Can Trump followers explain to me why they don't think Trump intends on being a dictator if elected. He speaks highly of other despots in publican AND in private, it seems. Isn't he trying to be one through the courts by claiming the presidency is ABOVE the law? Didn't he say so, at least for Day One?
Some of the nice things Trump said about despots:
To Donald Trump, Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán is “fantastic,” Chinese leader Xi Jinping is “brilliant,” North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is “an OK guy,” and, most alarmingly, he allegedly said Adolf Hitler “did some good things,” a worldview that would reverse decades-old US foreign policy in a second term should he win November’s presidential election, multiple former senior advisers told CNN.
And isn't that what his cult members will vote for in November?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/politics … index.htmlThis must scare the hell out of Lying Trump. If they will put a 74 year-old Navarro in jail, why wouldn't they put a 77 year-old Trump in jail as well?
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba … to-prison/So that's why the Dems are afraid of Trump? Just a mere 30% following?
Those are the cult members. Probably another 10% will vote for him for other nonsensical reasons.
It also makes a big difference on how those votes are distributed. If it were a popularity contest, then Clinton would have won in 2016, Biden did win in 2020 by 8 million votes, and Biden would almost certainly win in 2024 by an even larger number.
But, it isn't, it is by electoral votes (which I support even though it sometimes has a very bad outcome).Also, they are afraid of Lying Trump because he is an existential threat to our nation, just like it would be if we elected Putin. There is really no light between the two other we don't think Trump has ordered anyone to be murdered yet.
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...
- 339
15 People!! close to Trump in contact with Russians. No Conspiracy???
by Scott Belford 5 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...
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 6 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...
- 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...
- 16
The Trump Dossier revisited.
by Randy Godwin 6 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...
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 15 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...