Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
I don't know where to post this, so posting here. I see no need to make a new thread.
Breaking News, today, May 7, 2024 from The Hill's Election Center. With their polling average of 686 polls through today the results are in:
Trump = 44.8%
Biden = 44.8%
Check it out! See the most recent polls for this month.
https://elections2024.thehill.com/natio … p-general/
There's more. What about the effect of Kennedy, Jr.? For 144 polls it works out to:
Trump = 41.2%
Biden = 40.1%
RFK, Jr. = 8.5%
The most recent poll, by I&I/TIPP Insights for May 1 - 3 it works out to be:
Biden = 39%
Trump = 38%
RFK, Jr. = 12%
Check it out!
https://elections2024.thehill.com/natio … k-general/So, at the moment, it is an even race. RFK Jr. seems to be drawing equally from both Trump and Biden.
Looking back many months, it is clear Biden has come from behind.
Not sure I would equate 'engaged in insurrection' to 'Trump was behind the insurrection.' What jurists stated was that Trump engaged in insurrection. Do I agree that his actions directly led to the insurrection - absolutely. Do I think he intended an insurrection - not necessarily. I think he intends to bully and intimidate people into giving him what he wants, and the insurrection was a byproduct of those goals, but not necessarily the intended activity that Trump wanted. Was he fine with it after it commenced, absolutely.
It may just be semantics, but his goal was to overturn the election through violent means in order for him to stay in power illegally. He called his supporters there and sent them to the Capitol to stop the certification. He knew they were armed and he used language that implied violence.
Personally, I can't draw any other conclusion that what happened was what he had in mind. And, for a while, it worked.
"In fifteen cases overseen by nine different judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents, courts have not minced words in declaring that Trump was the central cause of the January 6, 2021 insurrection, echoing the findings of the bipartisan January 6th Select Committee. "
https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor … nuary-6th/
I think "engaged" and "caused" is really a distinction without much difference.He certainly left open the idea of violence, but it's just as plausible that the intimidation angle was his intent.
And great, you found a link that backs your beliefs. That doesn't make it a truth, it just means you found some confirmation bias from a source that believes as you do.
And 'engaged in' is significantly different than 'being behind' (I noticed you tried to change the language to 'caused' to downplay your initial claim). There's not a single shred of actual evidence that Trump had planned for violence. He bears responsibility for it because his lies fueled it, his campaign organized it, and he had the secret plan to send his supporters to the Capitol. But 'being behind it' means he planned for there to be violence, and that's unsupported in my opinion.So, you would say that Charles Manson didn't "cause" the murders done on his behalf.
At least I offered solid logic and evidence. You have offered nothing of the sort. For me, it is easy to connect the dots.
If I were on a jury and presented with what we know to be true so far, finding him guilty of "causing", "leading", "engaging", "being behind" in the insurrection beyond a reasonable doubt would be an easy call. That is why so many justices have come to the same conclusion.Caused and planned are two very different claims. As for the logic claim, your logic omits that Trump's intent may have been simply to intimidate. There is no evidence tying him to any plan of violence, whereas there was plenty for groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. It would not be hard for a defense attorney to shift the blame to those groups and away from Trump.
What evidence do you have that "intimidation" was his only goal. If that was only it, why call his army together? Why send them to the capitol knowing that they were armed? Why tell them to "fight like hell" over and over again?
The evidence is that he "incited" what went on, he lit the fuse and then watched it burn with full intent that it would cause the certification of Biden to fail - which it did.
I go with common sense and the judges on this one.Actually, I think you're going with partisan bias and changing the meaning of what the judges actually said to suit that bias.
The evidence that the goal was simply intimidation is right there in his speech when he tells his supporters that they are going down to the Capitol to patriotically and peacefully make their voices heard.
His army? You mean his supporters? And there's a big difference between knowing they are armed and not caring if they were armed because they weren't there to harm him, as he stated.
And your claim that he said 'fight like hell' over and over again is another gross exaggeration. He used the phrase 'fight like hell' three times - the first being in reference to Kavanaugh's nomination - which I do not recall Trump using violence to get approved - so that usage was non-violent. Then in back-to-back sentences near the end of his speech. He did use fight or fighting around twenty times, but not 'fight like hell,' as often as you claim. And the first time he used it, it was used in a non-violent way, undercutting your argument that it was a call to actual violence. Certainly, some of his supporters interpreted it to mean violence, but his usage of the phrase earlier in the speech does not preclude a non-violent intent.
Lastly, if his intent was violence, why did he plan to go to the Capitol? Wouldn't that have put himself in danger? Does Trump seem like the kind of guy that would want to be on-hand for a violent attack? He's very careful to keep distance between himself and actual illegal acts. Why on Earth would he want to be out front leading a crowd to commit illegal acts? Everything we know about the man undercuts the theory that he planned for violence based on him wanting to be in attendance.Just because my conclusions from the evidence I see leads me to an anti-Trump position, it doesn't mean I am biased. What it means is that is where the evidence leads.
Are you suggesting that because Trump wanted to be at the Capitol means he didn't want violence to happen? If that is true, why did he make sure his army was armed?First off all, I disagree with the 'army' label. Is everyone who shows up at a rally or protest to be called an army? That's a ridiculous leap.
Next, he did not 'make sure they were armed.' Again, you are arriving at a conclusion that is invention. He stated he did not care if they were armed...not that his people were encouraging or handing out weaponry. Maybe he made the determination that his people were smart enough not to bring weapons when they were sure to be searched by Secret Service as they had at every event prior to this one.
Next, I laid out plenty of evidence that Trump did not intend violence. The fact that you are still ignoring it backs my claim of a bias. I'm pretty far left, and looking at the scenario, I could not conclude that Trump's intent was violence.
I do think he's civilly culpable for the violence based on his campaign organizing the rally, inciting the crowd, failing to check for weapons, and then sending them to the Capitol without informing Capitol Police. But I wouldn't indict criminally because intent just cannot be proven.When people show up at almost all protests, violent or non-violent, they are not called there by a single person. Trump knows he has a cult of willing followers and he literally invited them to Washington to have a "wild" time. - Why did he do that? Did he trust them not to show up on their own?
His speech was clearly designed to inflame passions against the people certifying Biden - that was done with intent.
He literally TOLD them to go to the Capitol to FIGHT - that was done with intent.
He effectively TOLD the security to let his army keep their weapons knowing they would take them to the Capitol to FIGHT - that was done with intent.
Once the attack started, Trump purposefully let it continue and even fed the flames even more - that was done with intent.
All a jury needs is to conclude that based on the circumstantial evidence that Trump's own actions constitute a foreseeable likelihood that violence will take place and that he was the one leading people by the nose to commit the violence. There is no requirement, which you seem to be looking for, that Trump give an actual order to "go break into the Capitol, threaten to kill the people there, and hang Mike Pence". That kind of specificity is not needed for people to draw reasonable conclusions.
To be civilly culpable, all that is needed is a preponderance of the evidence and you have provided that in your own comment.
To be criminally liable, what is needed is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that is available in abundance.
I don't go into a situation with any bias. Well, that is not true, I tend to think people are honest and above board which keeps getting me in trouble. But once the available evidence suggests otherwise then I make the appropriate conclusions and defend them until new information comes along. I think you are interpreting that as preconceived bias.Trump knows he has a cult of willing followers and he literally invited them to Washington to have a "wild" time. - Why did he do that?
(To show members of Congress how many rubes supported his lies, but that's not illegal, last I checked)
His speech was clearly designed to inflame passions against the people certifying Biden (Again, inflaming passions is not a crime)
He literally TOLD them to go to the Capitol to FIGHT (As so many of our far-right 'friends' always point out, fight can have non-violent connotations as they continuously show by quoting dozens of left-leaning politicians using the word. So, again, not a crime)
He effectively TOLD the security to let his army keep their weapons knowing they would take them to the Capitol to FIGHT (This one is comical as you are making two major assumptions - one that Trump assumed his supporters would be armed and what Trump knew his supporters would do - neither you can prove and this is part of your bias really showing itself)
Trump certainly sat on his hands after the violence started and engaged in the insurrection with his post telling his supporters that Pence was not going to stop the certification - but that was done after the violence had already commenced. That does not prove that Trump was 'behind it.'
Again, all your evidence is circumstantial, at best, and easily explained by a defense lawyer as Trump trying to show Congress that many Americans supported his position and he wanted them to passionately, peacefully and patriotically be at the Capitol to make their voices heard - as he stated.
And please find me one jurist who state Trump was 'behind the insurrection.' My contention is that they stated he engaged in insurrection. Certainly, some of the actions they found to be engagement helped to create the environment that led to the insurrection, but those charged with seditious conspiracy are the ones that had the bigger part in the insurrection as they planned the violence. You'd think if Jack Smith had the evidence to prove Trump was behind it, he would have included the charge for seditious conspiracy in his DC case.Who was responsible for sicing (how do you spell that?) the Proud Boys, the 2%ers, and the other domestic terrorists on the Capitol? They clearly didn't go their on their own volition. They came because Trump told the to.
Of course it is circumstantial, what else could it be. But, it is so overwhelming that any reasonable person will conclude that Trump is guilty of causing, leading, engaging in, starting an insurrection.Personally, I think Smith should have, and he may well still. But it seems he took what he thought was the safer way out.
Which is another piece of evidence to suggest that the evidence is not there to prove Trump was 'behind the insurrection.'
How does it do that? Don't both charges have about the same outcome? Why take the harder one?
And a pressure campaign on Pence would have achieved the same outcome. Sending his followers to the Capitol in protest to intimidate Pence easily could have been shown to be the goal. It's like the 'fight' analogy. It was reckless, but the two sides of the aisle can both show how the word fits their views of what Trump's intent was by using it. Is that proof beyond a doubt? Not even close.
So, you appear to be of the opinion that there is no amount of circumstantial evidence that would convince you that Trump incited the insurrection. Do I have that right?
But, if there is some amount of circumstantial evidence that would convince you, what would it be?It would be communication between Trump's Campaign and the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, who instigated the violence.
"Trump's Dec. 19 tweet, which read: "Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" spread like wildfire among far-right groups, said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md.
In the hours after that tweet was posted, Kelly Meggs, the head of the Florida Oath Keepers, posted a message on Facebook pledging that his group would "work together" with the Three-Percenters and Proud Boys, two other right-wing extremist groups."
Then
"In a clip of video testimony, Donell Harvin, former D.C. homeland security chief, said his agency had intelligence of "very, very violent individuals" from these groups organizing to come to Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6.
"These non-aligned groups were aligning, and all the red flags went up at that point," he said. "When you have armed militia collaborating with white supremacy groups, collaborating with conspiracy theory groups online, all for the common goal, you start seeing what we call in terrorism a blended ideology, and that's a very, very bad sign."
And
"The committee laid out evidence that people in Trump's orbit were involved with these extremist groups.
Here's what we know about links between extremists and Trump allies
POLITICS
Here's what we know about links between extremists and Trump allies
The panel pointed to one-time Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn being photographed with members of the Oath Keepers outside the Capitol six days before he was in an Oval Office meeting about overturning the election.
The committee also revealed an encrypted chat called F.O.S. (Friends of Roger Stone), a Trump associate, that included leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers as well as the organizer of Trump's Jan. 6 rally.
A Twitter employee who testified anonymously said that in the aftermath of Trump's tweet, "It felt as if a mob was being organized, and they were gathering together their weaponry, their logic and their reasoning behind why they were prepared to fight."
And there is much more than that. Any one of those things doesn't say much, but when put together and viewed as a whole, it presents a very damning and convincing tale.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/11111324 … proud-boysMichael Flynn and Roger Stone were in no way with the Trump Campaign or linked with Trump in 2020. You're reaching. If it was 2016, those points would have some credibility because both were. Your theory is about four years too late.
Give me a break, Flynn was, is, embedded with Trump and, if I remember right, wasn't Stone at the rally encouraging things along? It is not me you are saying is too late, it is the entire Jan 6 committee that you are poo-pawing.
"For months, he (Roger Stone) coordinated with far-right leaders and urged allies to join the “Stop the Steal” movement. When it all fell apart, he lobbied the former president for a pardon for himself and “the entire MAGA movement,” up until the day Trump left office."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts … out-jan-6/Yeah, I'm getting a lot wrong this week. Flynn was in the meeting the night Trump set the date of the rally. And according to Hutchinson, Trump told Meadows to call Stone and Flynn on the night of January 5th. She believes he made those calls. It would be interesting to hear Meadows under oath about the content of those calls.
This so called Trump 'insurrection' case is an anathema or curse. Those involved and catched, and tried, and found guilty are limboing jail. But Trump, whom many accursing fingers is pointed at still moves here and there. Why was not Trump, arrest along with those already jailed? I find this as an anathama too.
Nothing "so-called" about it.
First, Trump didn't physically invade the Capitol or directly lead a faction that did and 2) he is currently under indictment for his role in it.The word under indictment should stand out here... He has not been convicted of the crimes against him on Jan 6th. Some in our society have adopted the sad ideology that they can pronounce one Guilty until proven innocent. An ideology that is popular in countries that have dictators.
Or one could understand that to be under indictment, there had to be a solid trove of evidence against a person to warrant a grand jury to indict. Even more so in a federal case, where federal prosecutors typically only bring indictments in cases they have the highest probabilities of winning (unless you're John Durham).
And that is a point I failed to make - a jury of reasonable people found enough evidence to recommend an indictment.
Not to be argumentative, but isn't that the whole concept behind the 'Soap Opera' entertainment industry? Seems that has been popular well before TV was invented. Guilty before proven so? You don't prove guilt nor innocence in our court of laws. You prove reasonable doubt. Or, at least that is how I see it. Maybe deluded, maybe not.
While it's true that soap operas often play into familiar storylines to captivate audiences, not all viewers are unable to discern between reality and fiction.
Ultimately, enjoying soap operas doesn't equate to being unintelligent or easily misled. People can appreciate dramatic storytelling without losing sight of reality or critical thinking. I mean some can... So, while soap operas may fulfill certain desires for some segments of society, it doesn't mean that everyone who enjoys them necessarily should bring the same mindset to believing guilt before guilt is proven.
Regarding "reasonable doubt" this has always been my take, Embedded within American values, the cornerstone principle of "innocent until proven guilty" resonates throughout the legal framework, embodying the overarching societal ethos of fairness, justice, and individual rights. Within this framework, the burden of proof squarely lies upon the prosecution, mandated to substantiate the defendant's culpability beyond any reasonable doubt. Should a jury unearth a crack, a reasonable doubt regarding the commission of a crime, they are charged by the court to deliberate with their conscience and render a verdict accordingly.BTW, have you ever wondered why you can only be found guilty or not guilty in a criminal trial? You are never found innocent.
It seems to me you are simply moving the goal posts again. Before he was indicted, your side's mantra was "But he hasn't been in indicted!! How dare you besmirch his character."
Well, now that he has been indicted with all sorts of multiple crimes, you move the goal post to "well, he hasn't been convicted yet". This in spite of the fact that prosecutors do not indict unless they truly believe they have the evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is why Mueller didn't pursue the conspiracy with the Russians angle for the Trump campaign. He clearly showed he had plenty of evidence of "collusion"; enough, I suspect, to clear the preponderance of evidence bar for civil trials, but not enough for the reasonable doubt bar for criminal trials.
As to your "innocent until proven guilty argument", that only works for criminal trials. Unless you prefer that people simply not think and reason, then it fails when you are talking about people forming opinions based on available evidence. A nuance reasoned people can appreciate but not those who only see black and white.
So the aurgument is now going ding-dong, ding-dong? Quo bono?
This was interesting....The Day a Porn Star Saved Democracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFsQG4GBFF4ROFL - She sure put Trump and his poor defense team in their place! (I say "poor" because they have to suffer the, what did Stormy call him, "the Orange Turd.")
Really --- Bill Maher unleashes on Stormy Daniels’ testimony in Trump trial: 'She's a bad witness!'
Maher highlighted his 2018 interview with Daniels, pointing out what she told him was quite different than what she said in the courtroom
"Real Time" host Bill Maher wasn't particularly thrilled with the testimony of adult film actress Stormy Daniels this week in the New York trial against former President Trump.
During a panel discussion Friday night, Maher reiterated his frustrations with how the criminal charges against Trump have been stalled, noting the recent developments with the Georgia and classified documents cases.
"So it's Stormy or bust," Maher quipped
He then got serious, declaring "She's a bad witness!" He backed up his argument by playing clips of his own interview with Daniels in 2018 while discussing her alleged affair with Trump, something Trump has long denied.
"You say it's not a Me Too case," Maher said to her at the time.
"It's not a Me Too case," Daniels responded. "I wasn't assaulted. I wasn't attacked, or raped, or coerced or blackmailed…. They tried to shove me in the Me Too box to further their own agenda. And first of all, I didn't want to be part of that because it's not the truth and I'm not a victim in that regard."
Maher reacted to the clip, "That's not what she's saying now."
"She's talking about ‘he was bigger and blocking the way.’ It's all the Me Too buzzwords. She said, ‘There was an imbalance of power for sure.’ ‘My hands were shaking so hard.’ She said she blacked out. Blacked out? She's a porn star!… Do you really think she blacked out? A porn star is used to having sex with people she doesn't [like]… I just think she's not a good witness."
The HBO host was previously cheery at the beginning of the trial, hyping how it could be a real game changer in the presidential election.
"This one, I got to say I was always against [it] because I thought of all the ones you're bringing, this is the least serious. … Now I think Trump could lose," Maher said two weeks ago. "I'm turning on this one because it's not what I thought it was going to be. And this David Pecker – I mean, brought down by a Pecker, this guy."
"And by the way, if this goes that way and Trump loses, it's going to change the whole election," Maher later said. "A number of independents, a significant number, and Republicans say their vote will change if he is a convicted criminal. And he'll look like a loser, not that he doesn't already, but you know."
"And Alvin Bragg is going to be the rising star of the Democratic Party because everyone said, ‘Not a good idea,’ including me. So, we'll see," he added. https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-mahe … ad-witness
In my view, she helped Trump's case immensely.How so? It's a documets case. I'm surprised that stormy was called as a witness at all. She wasn't needed. It appeared that the decision to put her on the stand was made when Trump's attorney Blanche in his opening statement denied the affair. That, is what opened the door for the testimony we heard. Trump's attorney shouldn't have made that statement. Whether they had an affair or not has nothing to do with the case. I think he botched his chances of overturning on appeal if there is a conviction.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … rcna151378I'm in agreement with you. I wasn't planning to delve into specifics with my last brief statement, as it was merely my personal opinion. However, after taking the time to listen and read articles from various legal experts, I've come to think that the prosecutor's line of questioning with Stormy Daniels could potentially be advantageous if the case reaches the appeal stage or even the Supreme Court, particularly concerning the issue of jury tainting. It's just my perspective after examining the viewpoints of some legal professionals.
I would think he will lose the case in New York. However, I do believe it will be overturned. I am just going as I said what some legal touts are saying.
I sense the prosecutor's aim was to subtly convey to the jury that Trump is morally questionable, even resorting to using Stormy Daniels' past involvement in adult entertainment as a visual aid. It's disheartening to see her unwittingly pulled into this spectacle. I wholeheartedly agree that her presence on the stand was unnecessary. In the grand scheme of things, it may very well be her testimony that tips the scales in Trump's favor upon appeal.
Hey Maher seemed to just be smearing her character by comparing his interview with her, and what she said on the stand.
When LYING TRUMP whines about not being able to get on the campaign trail - KEEP IN MIND that he doesn't really want to.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/11/politics … index.htmlMaher reacted to the clip, "That's not what she's saying now."
Apparently, Maher turned it off before the cross-examination where she specifically stated there was no assault. As usual, a post here only tells half the story in a way to try and paint a false narrative.The whole thing seems a mud smear. Let it go to the Appeal Court, or the USA Supreme Court.
It will, and justice will occur, most likely in the appeals court.
Here is another good reason MAGA thinks Trump is, lol, "fit" to be president - he cheats on his taxes. But not the everyday petty cheating many Americans do, he does it on a grand scale.
FACT - Trump claimed as "worthless" his Chicago Trump Tower, and wrote off $651 million on his 2008 taxes. Now, tax experts claim that should have been investigated as not legitimate, but for some strange reason, it was not. Well, apparently thought that if he could do it once, he could do it again.
So this honorable, ethical, honest, upstanding citizen (if you missed it, that was sarcasm) changed ownership of the property to an LLC he owned and DID IT AGAIN!!! on his 2010 by declaring another $168 million in losses. Well, the IRS has been slow rolling this audit ever since but is now bringing it to a close. If the audit finds against Trump as it ought to (even MAGA people should know you can't claim the same deduction twice), then Trump might be on the hook for another $100 MILLION plus, I suspect, penalties and interest.
MAGA must be proud.
BTW - why did such a business savvy real estate investor claim his 92-story building worthless? Because of huge cost overruns in its construction and he couldn't rent the units.
In fact, what is the source of Trump's wealth? It certainly isn't his business acumen is it, most of those deals went south into bankruptcy. No, it turns out to be four things: 1) his father's inheritance, 2) being an entertainer with The Apprentice, 3) getting lenders to write off his debt), and 4) licensing his name. It appears he is a very poor businessman (along with defrauding people where he continually had to settle out of court and cheating on his taxes).
"If the I.R.S. prevails, Mr. Trump’s tax returns would look very different, especially those from 2011 to 2017. During those years, he reported $184 million in income from “The Apprentice” and agreements to license his name, along with $219 million from canceled debts. But he paid only $643,431 in income taxes thanks to huge losses on his businesses, including the Chicago tower. "
(That $219 million in cancelled debt is reportable as income, but, true to form and much like Hunter Biden, he failed to report or pay taxes on it when he was supposed to have. Again, like Hunter Biden who is facing a criminal trial for it, Trump finally STARTED to declare it two years too late. (But is he getting charged for it? Of course not.)
That, along with being a convicted sexual predator, is the kind of man several here on this forum want to be president.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/11/us/t … icago.htmlROFL. Even pro-Trump donors are sick of listening to the lies MAGA believes about 2020 election. The owner of the radio station the much indicted Rudy Giuliani uses to spew his garbage had had enough. He told Rudy to stop spreading lies about the 2020 election and Rudy did it anyway. So, the owner pulled the plug on Rudy's ability to spread lies over the airways.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/11/business … ies-digvid
Speaking of Republicans who are sick of Trump, the former #2 in Georgia is saying he is not only NOT going to vote for Trump, but he WILL vote for Joe Biden. Other smart Republicans need to follow his lead.This #2 Georgian is not smarter than the late James Galagham of England. Late Galagham said he will vote for Magarreth Tharcher, and did just that, and lost the prime ministership by one vote, his vote that he cast for Maggie. Smartness like a phone or AI demand specification. The whole thing smarks of double-speak.
Where is the so-called "double-speak"? He said he was going to vote for Biden because Trump is unfit for the presidency. Presumably he will vote for Biden and his rational is self-evident.
His "smartness" is obvious - he avoided coming under the spell of the master conman Trump.Now the clarity and specification is apparent. If I were that #2 Georgian, I would said: 'I'll vote for biden. I'll not vote for Trump'. Seriously, we're discussing a very critical issue that pertain to the Law and the Courts. So it's more gentlemanly to go specific, instead of beating about the bush. If Trump had speak so as the #2, the Dem, and Rep leaning Left would start to imagine any negatively or evil related thing under the Sun against 'real' Donald Trump.
That is what he said, he won't for Trump, he will vote for Biden. Geoff Duncan, former Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, a very Conservative fellow. All I could remember was his last name when I wrote the original post.
But he kept others wondering, or in a limbo. That state of smartness is not homely under the circumstances.
Can some Trump supporter explain why virtually nobody is showing up in support of Trump at his criminal trial? Consider:
* The ONLY family member to show up is his son Eric, three times in two weeks I think.
* Average MAGA-type's are there in single digits, if at all.
* His political cult members are few and far between as well. Only those shooting for a VP or Cabinet post shoed their faces recently.
* Melania is staying as far away as she can.
He must feel very lonely.We should start a thread called, 'Ask a Trump supporter...'
Because not only why if Trump is so popular, as all the Trump supporters always claim here, is no one supporting him at trial...but why the heck is Trump running on Hannibal Lecter as an issue?So you pick on where his attorney err? Okay, ask the lawyer. I'm an outsider.
Well, it is becoming very clear that the prosecution has what it needs to convict Trump on 34 felony counts. Today, they introduced documentary evidence that links Trump himself with knowing the repayment arraignments were not for so-called "legal fees". While I agree with the CNN pundits that the DA at least needs to make the attempt to get Wiessleburg to testify, they do have his written instructions on what the repayment consisted of and why.
This evidence appears to corroborate the testimony of Cohen that the monies he was getting was to reimburse him for fronting Trump the Stormy Daniels hush-money payments plus extra for taxes and a bonus Trump stiffed Cohen on.
This puts a dent in Trump's attempt to discredit Cohen because it seems the jury no longer has to rely JUST on Cohen's word that this was the scheme he, Wiessleburg, and Trump cooked up.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.htmlGod, how embarrassing - Trump has to resort to GoFundMe to pay his legal bills so that he doesn't have to spend his own money. He abuses every system he comes in contact with.
Isn't it nice to have a man on the inside? "An upside-down American flag – a symbol used by some supporters of former President Donald Trump who challenged the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory – hung outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito after the election, The New York Times reported Thursday."
TWO men actually since unJustice Thomas's wife and counselor aided and abetted in the overthrow of a lawful election.ESO, I saw that, Alito should recuse himself from cases dealing with Donald Trump immunity for crimes committed in office. It was pretty stupid of Alito to allow such a blatant display on his property as a supposedly impartial member of the Supreme Court.
He has never been impartial - always anti-gov't.
I suspect we will see a post saying the other Justices should recuse themselves because they don't support Trump, lol. (sort of like, if you oppose discrimination, that means you are a racist)
Has the prosecution met its burden of proof where the jury "should" convict Trump on some or all of the felony counts against him?,
WHAT ARE THE CHARGES?
There are two sets, one set, falsifying business records, a misdemeanor in New York.
The other set are felonies where the state is saying Trump falsified the records in furtherance of another crime, in this case violating New York's campaign finance laws by hiding payments made to Stormy Daniels to keep her silent about their sexual encounter in order to improve his chances of winning the election in New York
Each charge the 34 charges is associated with a payment made to Michael Cohen that was mischaracterized as a "legal" expensive They break down as follows:
11 Falsified Invoices
12 Falsified General Ledger entries
11 Checks Falsely Recording Hush Money Payments as "Retainers"
(§ 175.05)
All these are Misdemeanors.
The state is claiming that each one of the 34 violations was in furtherance of illegal campaign contributions in Trump's 2020 election. (§ 175.10)
If proven, that makes all 34 counts Felonies in the State of New York.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF PROOF?
This is interesting, the prosecution only charged § 175.10, the "stepped-up" charge from § 175.05. In New York, the prosecution only needs to prove 1) the records were falsified and 2) that Trump only "intended" violate the Federal Election Campaign (FECA) law, the New York equivalent to FECA, 17-152, and/OR federal/state tax laws. The focus has been on the first two, but the last is also in play.
Also, of note, the underlying "falsification" charges are lesser included offenses, but not charged in their own right.
Elements of Proof for 175-10
Falsified Business Records
1) That Trump made or caused a false entry in the business records
of an enterprise; or
2) omitted to make a true entry in the business records
of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which
the defendant knew to be imposed upon him/her by
law or by the nature of his/her position; or
3) Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof
in the business records of an enterprise.
Intent to Commit another Crime
That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that
included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or
conceal the commission thereof.
These must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to mean beyond ANY doubt, but beyond a Reasonable doubt. In other words, is there a realistic alternative possibility that could be considered?
SO WHAT HAS THE PROSECUTION PRESENTED?
1. The prosecution painfully entered into evidence each of the 11 invoices, 12 ledger entries, and 11 checks that were produced by the Trump Organization or accounts controlled by Trump
2. Each of the invoices submitted by Cohen and accepted by the Trump Organization (TO) were notated "pursuant to a retainer agreement". Testimony from the TO comptroller established these invoices were required for Cohen to receive payment.
3. The comptroller also testified that each of the general ledger entries associated with the payments to Cohen were for "legal" expenses. (The defense tried a "the dog ate my homework" defense by blaming the accounting system for this.)
4. Each of the checks issued to Cohen that were submitted into evidence stated they were for a "Retainer".
Up to this point, the testimony of Michael Cohen has not been needed, but now the prosecution must show how these were "False" records.
The bottom line is that none of these documents were for or about "legal" fees. And, if the prosecution can show they were not, then by default, that are False Records. So, what do we have then?
1. Cohen testified (corroborated) the money he was paid was not for legal expenses, that there was no "retainer" agreement. That he was required to submit invoices (corroborated) in order to get repaid the money he spent to keep Stormy Daniels quiet. He wrote in his emails and and on some invoices that they were for "legal" fees.
2. All the general ledger entries regarding the payments listed them as legal fees when they were not. (documentary evidence)
3. The prosecution presented a bank statement Cohen used to set up the shell company used to pay Stormy Daniels which showed how Cohen was to be "reimbursed", not for legal fees, but for the $130,000 that Cohen had paid to Daniels, another $130,000 to cover the taxes (another falsification since repayment of expenses is not taxable), $60,000 in a bonus Cohen felt Trump stiffed him on, and the remainder for reimbursement for money paid to company called Red Finch. All total, this was $420,000 which was paid out monthly and equals the 12 $35,000 checks, most of which were signed by Trump, where the stubs said "RETAINER FEES" (a lie). This is the "smoking gun" that ties Weisselberg, Trump, and Cohen together.
4. The above also corroborates Cohen's testimony that Trump knew and approved what was going on.
5. Cohen also testified, uncorroborated, that he spoke to Trump and told him the deal was struck with Stormy Daniels.
6. The prosecution introduced an extreme amount of testimony from Trump staff that shows, when the amounts are above $10,000, Trump is very involved and must approve such transactions.
7. The testimony from multiple witnesses overwhelmingly show that Trump was worried about his fling with Daniels (true or not) getting out and hurting his chances to become president.
In my mind, the jury has all that it needs now to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump as least allowed false records to be produced that tried to hide his payments to Stormy Daniels under the guise of legal fees in order to assist in his becoming president, which is illegal.The Stormy Daniels issues aside, didn't Americans know Trump as (1) A bad realtor. (2) A con man (3) A pornor addict. (4) An 'evil' person as claimed. I am an outsider. I knew about Jimmy Carter, before he become president. What made Carter lost the presiddncy for the second time I learnt by reading the American Time and. NewsWeek magazines at 17 years. Seriously, the points in my first paragraphe are things to weigh with Trump before electing him or any politician with presidential shot. Americans failed here, right? So convict Trump, and and send him to prison? OMG thats awful and terrible!
He was (and IS) all those things, but there is a certain large set of Americans who don't care that he is a bad businessman man, cheater on his wives, a convicted sexual predator, a con man supreme, a convicted fraudster, and all the rest. They don't believe in individual rights m democracy, and American Values,
This element of American society indicate they want a dictator who will protect White people in America and discriminate against the Other."This element of American society indicate they want a dictator who will protect White people in America and discriminate against the Other."
What is disappointing is that this element is far more numerous and vast than I previously thought.It is for sure. Keep in mind these are the descendants of those who supported the slave states. They have maintained the same mind set through the centuries.
The Civil Rights Act of 1965 and follow-on legislation and SC rulings began to make a dent in this worldview. Until 1983, that is. That is when the religious right, using Reagan as a vehicle, began to rise again and fight against the progress that had been made.
Now you have former slave states in almost full rebellion against the Union and civil society such as Texas, South Carolina, Florida, and the like.So outside of mere cosmetics, the ugliness that defined American race relations has not really changed. I mean beyond the mere superficial, but deep into attitudes and motivations. Trump represents the desires of those who want to reintroduce the biased America of old, but give it a fresh new label. Well, I am not easily fooled.
That 'that this element is far more numerous and vast than I previously thought'. Here I assume (the elements) they out number the Democrate voters? Somethings seriously wrong in the American society and culture.
Does MAGA outnumber the Democrats? Good question, I don't think so but let me check.
First MAGA isn't registered so you can't count registrations, but if you use the number of people who voted for Trump in 2020 as a proxy, you might have a good starting point. That number is 74.2 million.
Now, not all of those will vote for Trump a third time. For that, I will use the percent who think Trump won but didn't really. That is ~70%. Doing the multiplication gives us 51.9 million die-hard Trump voters.
In 2020, 81.1 million voted for Biden. None will vote for Trump in 2024. In addition, Biden will pick up 2020 Trump voters who can't stomach another Trump term.
So your comparison is ~ 81 million Biden vs ~ 52 million Trump.
You are very right, there is something seriously wrong with the judgement of those 52 million Americas who will vote for Trump.November is calling. And I wait to see your prediction in real time.
Thanks. I've take note. People have a choice. The right choose is much better, but can prove disadvantageous.
TRUMP'S proposed Trade War with China will cost middle class families $1,700 per year!
Biden's proposed tariffs will not.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/business … index.htmlMore indications that Trump and MAGA want a dictator in America.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/politics … ial-digvidI just saw that. Only one campaign is parroting the language of the Nazis. I'd be so ashamed if I was associated with those people.
I was as well. I was a Reagan Republican before the religious right took over and destroyed everything. At least the religious right didn't try to destroy democracy like Trump and MAGA are doing.
The Judge Cannon obviously didn't learn from the Bench-slap she got from a very conservative court last year. She is still trying to get criminal Trump off the hook for putting America in danger by mishandling national secrets.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/22/politics … index.htmlJust Out -
"A right-wing German lawmaker made comments seen as so explosively outside the mainstream of acceptable political discourse, that his party was disowned by other far-right leaders, breaking a major coalition in the European Parliament.
Maximilian Krah, of the Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party, told an Italian newspaper that he didn’t view all members of a notorious Nazi paramilitary group automatically as criminals. He claimed that some in the SS, whose primary role was guarding concentration camps during World War II, were in fact just farmers.
“Before I declare someone a criminal, I want to know what he did. Among the 900,000 SS men there were also many farmers: there was certainly a high percentage of criminals, but not all of them were. I will never say that anyone who wore an SS uniform was automatically a criminal,” Krah told La Repubblica last weekend."
THAT sounds just like some on here as well as their favorite right-wing extremist Donald Trump, doesn't it?
"Düker noted a similarity between the AfD and Donald Trump, adding that: “The more scandals and the more outrageous things the ex-President said, the more his followers seemed to commit to him even more. And something similar appears to be going on with the AfD.”" - Sounds like the AfD is the MAGA of Germany, doesn't it?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/26/europe/g … index.html
What he/they don't get is as soon as they don the SS uniform or the white hood and robe or exhibit the Swastika symbol, they declare themselves part of a criminal enterprise.The whole that don the white robe, or the Swastika, are criminals as said. Why then did the Nuremberg Tribunal sentence just !! of the whole criminals to death? Think.
I think the issue is the exclamation marks (!!) instead of the Arabic numeral 11. I'm sorry for the typo. Now why did the Nuremberg Tribunal allowed just 11 of the whole criminals to be executed? So you're telling me the whole MAGA are criminals?
If the "whole of MAGA" dons the white robe and hood or sport the Swastika or say some SS were good, then yes, the "whole of MAGA". But, you know as well as I that is not the case NOR IS IT what I said.
You seem to mean the part that don the white robe, or display the Swastika, are the criminals, right? The whole Nazi Party is not divided, though they're phony attempts to oust Adolf Hitler or kill him. In the case of Trump and MAGA, it was an affiliation correct me if I'm wrong. Do Trump and MAGA agree together, or are they divisive? So that I can brand the whole MAGA criminals?
I seems you are doing what one other on this forum does - make things up.
Please provide the quote where I implied the "whole of MAGA" are criminals.You don't said so. I said it as a questioner, right? Or asking a question.
Then no, not all MAGA are criminals. I stick with my original statement which is those of MAGA who don the white robe and hood or sport the Swastika or say some SS were good are part of a criminal conspiracy.
How embarrassing is this - Trump BOOED and HECKLED loudly and for a very long time at the Libertarian convention as he whined about the way he is being treated. He didn't submit papers to be nominated by the Libertarians but he nevertheless asked people to nominate him from the floor or at least write in his name.
He got SIX write-in votes
Stormy Daniels got ONE vote.
RFK Jr,, who was nominated, got just 2% of the vote, or 19 delegates.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/26/politics … index.html4 girls stabbed in Braintree, MA by an American citizen. Where is the hue and cry from the Right. Oh, there isn't any because the culprit isn't an immigrant. Can you say Double Standards? Can you say Hypocrisy?
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/mas … d-ravizza/It is so sad that Republicans in the House are SO DISFUNCTIONAL that they can't even follow the law and put up a plaque honoring the men and women who saved their lives even though many of them were injured in the process and a few of them dies as a result.
I am sure the culprits are the anti-Ukraine, anti-democracy crowd who now don't think much happened on Jan 6th. They should all be recalled.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … e&ei=8It is really true, isn't it. If you come into Trump's orbit, chances are high you will charged with a crime.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/politics … index.htmlToday, Republicans are screaming that Bragg should have never brought charges against Trump, that they were bogus charges, that NOBODY has ever been charged in New York with similar crimes (along with whole lot of other misleading BS.)
Well, a few days a jury of his peers (although Trump probably thinks those people are well below him) found he IN FACT did commit a crime, a felony - actually 34 of them!!!
To refresh your memories, Trump was accused of falsifying business records with the intent to cover up another crime. The business records are:
* 11 invoices falsely claiming legal expenses
* 12 ledger entries recording false legal expenses
* 11 checks paid to Cohen indicating, falsely, they were for legal expenses.
What was being covered up was the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet so as to help Trump when the 2016 election.
The prosecution offered three different crimes Trump wanted to hide:
1. Violations of Federal Campaign Laws
2. Violations of New York Campaign Laws
3. Violations of New York tax laws (for claiming legal expenses that weren't really expenses)
This is what Republicans are calling "trumped" up charges.
Well, the jury didn't think they were "trumped" up at all. In short order they convincingly found Trump guilty of the felonies charged beyond a reasonable doubt
Their GUILTY verdict puts a LIE to Republican claims the charges should never have been brought against Trump. Of Course they should have been brought. After Bragg and his predecessor completed their investigation, they found compelling evidence Trump had committed crimes. Republicans are saying Bragg should have been derelict in his duty and not charged Trump.
Their GUILTY verdict also puts a LIE to Republican claims that the charges were bogus. Clearly they weren't - but that doesn't stop Republicans from tearing down our judicial system and our democracy along with it. They should be so ashamed of themselves.
Trump was found guilty of violation New York Penal Law §175.10. Trump and Republicans falsely claim that NY has never used this law before. Well, that is a lie. In fact, there have been just shy of 9,800 cases brought under New York Penal Law §175.10 since 2015.
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2 … ce%202015.
Why does MAGA want to destroy America?It looks like Trump appointed "Judge" Aileen Cannon is trying yet again to get her benefactor off the hook without getting Bench Slapped again by the very Conservative appeals court. This time she appears to be going to great lengths to invalidate the Special Council law. Trump has tried this tactic in countless other courts in all sorts of jurisdictions and Failed each time. Maybe the 100th try will be the charm.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/politics … index.htmlMore exposure of how Right-Wing propaganda outlets screw the public. Lying Fox News, well, LIES and now the Epoch Times built a multi-million dollar money-laundering scheme. Doesn't it don on you that almost all the people and organizations close to Trump end up indicted or in jail?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/media/pr … index.htmlAt the 80th Anniversary of D-Day when Allied Forces landed on Normandy, France to take back Europe from the fascists, President Biden said: "The 'dark forces' confronted on D-Day will 'never fade' "
Boy, isn't that the truth. The fascist forces are on the rise in Europe and America:
* the far-right is expected to make significant gains in the EU Parliament.
* Victor Orban has led Hungary into an authoritarian autocracy 9ambivalent toward Putin)
* Giorgia Meloni became PM of Italy and is moving the nation toward authoritarian autocracy (ambivalent toward Putin)
* Robert Fico, PM of Slovakia, is making authoritarian, autocratic moves beginning with supporting Putin.
* Donald Trump and his MAGA party want to pick up where he left off in turning America into an authoritarian run, autocratic nation.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/d- … 1711df0885Thanks for the link. Each topic is interesting.
I guess that MAGA is Cult, a rude and ill-mannered one at that.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-offic … 22302.htmlThat is so typically sickening of MAGA. Brainwashed beyond belief, lovers of felons, lovers of sexual predators. What has happened to that part of America that they have lost their moral compass in service to their golden idol?
This headline and analysis says it all -
Biden defends democracy in Europe while Trump undermines it at home
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/07/politics … index.htmlhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/simple-trump … 54458.html
A most appropriate article, wanted to pass it on.As an aside, yet somewhat on topic, Trump most definitely has a history with the courts over the years. Easily one could say he flirts with the law while who knows with sociological mores and folkways. We do know he grabs p**ssy and goes into ladies locker rooms.
Anyway, with a few moments of spare time this article linked next is a good summary of Trump's lawsuits spanning three decades. I offer no judgement only the facts as presented by USA Today via AZ Central.
Donald Trump: Three decades 4,095 lawsuits published by AZ Central
https://www.azcentral.com/pages/interac … -lawsuits/Thanks for the link, the numbers sound extrodinary but is this what would be expected from a man in Trump's position? Is it below or above average?
Fair question, Cred. It appears Trump is very unique with law entanglements. I will offer to you if curious what Slate says about it.
Has Anyone Been Sued More Than Donald Trump? (May 7, 2023)
An examination of the unique set of factors that may have led him to be involved in such a stunning number of lawsuits.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … trump.html
"So I reached out to a few law professors who specialize in complex litigation, and they couldn’t think of anyone who has been entangled in as many lawsuits, as both a plaintiff and a defendant, as Trump. It’s “definitely unprecedented” for a former president, said Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham University School of Law.
Trump has built up a massive public profile as a businessman and now a former president, and some experts think that it’s emboldened him to sue, even threatening people that cross him. “One thing that makes Donald Trump unique is that he doesn’t shy away from litigation. He relishes it. For him, it’s what I’ve always thought of as an overall strategy to elevate his public profile,” explained Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at Loyola Law School. If a lawsuit Trump has initiated turns sour, he usually turns it around and blames the court system—the same argument he uses when someone else sues him."Thanks for the link, Tim
Honest people generally and usually do not have a deal to hide. He takes advantage of people without his resources to win by stringing them out. While you cannot be in the business at the scale of Trump without some of this coming up, I see His record as excessive.
Yes it is!
For years now those of us not part of the Trump cult or cult-adjacent have been saying Trump is a crook, a criminal. Michael Cohen said it best when he compared Trump to a mob boss. It is hard to see any daylight between what he controls and a crime mob. He is even under indictment for a RICO offense.
The evidence was overwhelming to those of us living in the real world.
Now, in relatively quick succession Trump was found guilty by a Jury of his Peers for:
* 34 felony counts of cooking the books in furtherance of another crime.
* Sexual Assault
* Defamation - Twice
* Civil Fraud - Bench trial
And this is the type of person MAGA laughingly thinks is fit for office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ … nald_TrumpPosted from another site, what do you think?
The article below is a guide as to how to treat Trump and his designation as a convicted felon. Democrats are far too timid. We get caught up in the Trumposphere.The portion of the atmosphere where the most bullish-t is to be found. We make the mistake of letting the Trumpers control the narrative, "use restraint in mentioning Trump's felony designation" and all that rot. Meanwhile, Trump and MAGA has plied us with lies and misrepresentations over the last 5 years, and the entire Republican Party is a corrupt cult because of one man. We have always taken the high road and brought a pea shooter to a gun fight. That does not work anymore. We are no longer dealing with "gentlemen", but with cult drones.
I say bash MAGA and Trump to a thousand shards. Play the felon line to the max, the people that we are so timidly worried about offending, if they cannot see the magnitude of what is involved would vote for Trump anyway, who needs them? Trump through his gang will try to make himself appear as just a regular political candidate and he is not, not by a long shot.
This felon designation is powerful and can reach and move normally inattentive, low information voters. That is far more significant than worrying about offending Trumpers.
The risks and stakes of allowing Trump and MAGA into power are so grave that we cannot afford to attack them half-assed, we gotta go full Monty. Their political destruction has to be our imperative, no holds barred if we are ever to be taken seriously.
Didn't know where to stick this, so sense I was here, this forum wins.
I suspect many of you are old enough to have seen The Day After, a film about the aftermath of a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and America. It was graphic and I still remember a couple of scenes from it, one of which I'll mention in a moment.
The article is about how this movie almost didn't get released and how it changed the course of nuclear war itself (of which I was not aware until now). I will reprint two paragraphs that caught my eye about who tried to stop it.
"Getting “The Day After” to air, though, was fraught. Even Reagan, who praised the film in his private writings, didn’t agree with its bleak and upsetting depiction of nuclear aftermath.
But the team who created it knew it could be important, so, after rejecting requests for edits, dodging complaints from conservative groups (why?) and acquiescing to the occasional network demand, “The Day After” finally made it to TV and changed the history of the medium –– and potentially the world."
There was a scene in the movie where, after the attack, people were walking around the city, I am guessing Lawrence, Kansas where it was set, like zombies. Everything was gray and ash or something was falling from the sky, it was very surreal.
Well, I was in Crystal City, VA , about a 1/4 mile South of the the Pentagon when it was attacked on Sept 11, 2001; it was a bright blue day. There is an elevated road that runs South from the Pentagon that I can see from one of the corner windows of my office. The smoke from the resulting fire blotted out the sun and everything looked gray. And there, walking down the highway like zombies, were people who evacuated from the Pentagon. The only thing missing, as I remember, was the ash falling. When I saw that scene, I immediately flashed back to the same scene in The Day After
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/09/entertai … index.htmlJust heard a simple TRUTH. If a person lies about who won the 2020 election, why should anyone believe anything else they say?
This quote from a Biden campaign ad lays out the choice for Americans in stark terms:
"“This election is between a convicted criminal who’s only out for himself and a president who is fighting for your family.”"
What patriotic American would want a convicted felon and sexual offender as their President? It just makes no sense!
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/17/politics … index.htmlDid I miss the fearmongering post of the day out of Florida yet or do we think that person got the help they so desperately need to live a life not bound by those irrational fears?
If THIS isn't a call for violent insurrection by Trump's mouthpiece Steve Bannon, I don't what is.
For example: “Are we at war?” he asked the crowd. “Is this a political war to the knife?” - probably referring to a bloody "war" in Kansas between conservative pro-slavery forces and liberal anti-slavery forces just prior to the Civil War.
OR even worse - “Are you prepared to leave it all on the battlefield in 2024?” he asked of Turning Point activists."
FOLLOWED by the definitive “It’s very simple: victory or death!” - harkening back to Patrick Henry's revolutionary cry to "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death". What could be clearer?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/18/politics … index.htmlBiden set to allow spouses and children of U.S. Citizens to apply for green cards without having to go back to their home country.
Now sit back and watch these god-fearing, Christian-believing conservatives rush to the courts to stop such a humane move.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/18/politics … index.htmlHow (and why) is it that all of Bidens "solutions" to tens of millions of illegal aliens in the country are always to make them legal? Never keep them out, never remove the criminals from within the country; just make them all legal. How is that a "solution" to anything at all (except buying votes, of course)?
Biden’s action will allow undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens to apply for “parole in place,” letting them temporarily remain lawfully, while they seek permanent resident status, that is, green cards.
Federal law already allows U.S. citizens to petition for green cards for undocumented spouses. But under the 1996 law many must leave the country first (often for up to three or 10 years) to apply. The new policy would simply allow those undocumented spouses, provided they’ve been here at least 10 years and meet other conditions, to remain lawfully here and get work permits while entering that already existing application process for legal status.
This lets them work lawfully and prevent the needless breakup of families along the way.
These people are married to American citizens and have lived here for at least a decade. Many have deep roots in communities across the country, have long been working or have started businesses here, and are raising American children.
The absurd GOP argument is that parole for these people will operate as a “pull” factor incentivizing more illegal border crossing. But by definition, it cannot function that way, since it applies only to those who have been here for 10 years as of mid-June.
In my opinion, this executive action just makes common sense. What's the alternative? Throw them out? Again I ask, who among us will pick up the jobs they leave behind? Really.
Also let's not forget another positive, common sense action by Biden..
Opening H-1B Visa path for DACA Recipients.
Graduates from U.S. colleges and universities, including DACA recipients, can now obtain work visas more quickly if they have a job offer in a field related to their degree.
I applaud Biden's actions for expanding protections for dreamers and the other EO's on immigration. They represent forward thinking.
Also just in...
Immigration surge could trim US deficits by almost $1 trillion in 10 years: CBO
https://thehill.com/business/budget/472 … reduction/That's what I said - everything Biden proposes is just another method of keeping illegal aliens in our country.
I recognize that you think it ridiculous that giving amnesty to illegal aliens will promote the idea that we let illegal aliens stay in the country. Nevertheless, it is true.
Immigration, with US citizens picking up the bill, will trim our deficit? Don't make me laugh! If it were even partially true we wouldn't have the financial problems we do. Our schools (with millions of illegal aliens) would not be too crowded, and out of money, just as a start."Immigration, with US citizens picking up the bill, will trim our deficit? Don't make me laugh!"
So you disagree with the cbo?
"The CBO, in an update to budget and economic forecasts made in February, said the current level of immigration of “other foreign nationals” was well above historical patterns and would continue to add to the overall size of the U.S. population, providing more workers for the labor force and thus boosting the economy."
Economists are increasingly turning to immigration as an explanation for how the U.S. economy withstood a long series of interest rate hikes in the years after the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic without falling into a recession.
The labor force in 2033 is larger by 5.2 million people, mostly because of higher net immigration. More workers mean more output and that in turn leads to additional tax revenue,” CBO Director Phillip Swagel said in February.
It really is quite basic.
But again, if Trump somehow wins the election and sweeps 10 million jobs out of the country, who fills those jobs, those businesses that close, mortgages? Absolutely no one on this forum has spoken to the impact on the economy that would result in the massive job vacancies . Am I to believe that maga is that short-sighted as to think the country could sustain such a labor shortage?
Who picks up the slack in all the vital industries we rely on daily if Trump tosses out a large percentage of their workers ? It's a simple question.Of course, the CBO is a bunch of uneducated liberal gov't workers who don't have his savvy about economic as, lol. How could they possibly know what they are doing?
(BTW, what they do is what I used to do when I worked for the Air Force. That is why I look on such pronouncements with humor.)I agree completely, notwithstanding what Phllip said. But Trump wins the November election. America shouldn't let him do away with those awesowe 10 million productive aliens. Critically, the Courts are there. Trump should be bench pressed against that.
Did the cbo even try to assess the cost of illegal aliens (or real immigrants for that matter)? Everything you say is based on illegal aliens supporting themselves; earning enough to pay enough taxes to provide for themselves. But they don't and you know they don't. They are almost all unskilled labor and there isn't likely a single business in the country that pays enough to support a family for such labor.
Of course they did, they are professionals.
Why do all the studies say there is net gain from immigrants, legal or otherwise. You should read those studies, I provided them to you several times. Maybe learn a little truth.
Your myth about almost all immigrants being unskilled labor is also something I provided you proof is wrong. Yet you persist in pushing these myths, why?
Back to that same old tired right-wing MYTH that migrants cost US citizens money I see. To repeat myself ad nauseum, study after study debunk that sad old myth you keep bring up.
Untrue. You know it is untrue just as I do.
Never forget that we are not talking skilled immigrants; we are talking unskilled labor that doesn't even know how to operate a lawn mower when they arrive.And what percent of these folks staff our meat packing plants, our farms, our hospitality industry, construction, road work (infrastructure)?
We need workers in these critical industries just as much as those in skilled jobs.
Do you feel that Trump's plan of mass deportation would negatively impact our economy due to the loss of workers in these areas? No worries of labor shortages?
A policy that eliminates almost 5 percent of the current workforce would cause no economic reverberations?
On the most basic level, what happens to the price of a quart of strawberries when the company producing them doesn't have the workers to harvest or sees 100% increase in their labor costs? We all know that gets passed on to us.
Fruit will rot on the vine before Americans show up to pick it.
I've seen nothing but report after report from economists that this plan would have devastating effects for our economy.
If you disagree, do you have any citations that address this type of labor loss as a positive? Or even inconsequential?
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2024/05/2 … -disaster/
https://cmsny.org/how-trump-mass-deport … -hurt-usa/Your links are very scary!
ChatGPT comes up with this (with sources):
Asylum seekers in the United States come from diverse backgrounds and bring with them a variety of skills and experiences. Many have professional backgrounds and significant work experience, although their skills and qualifications can vary widely depending on their country of origin and personal circumstances.
Key Skills and Experiences
Professional and Technical Skills:
Healthcare: Many asylum seekers have backgrounds in healthcare, including doctors, nurses, and medical technicians, especially from countries like Syria and Venezuela where there has been significant emigration due to conflict and economic collapse (American Immigration Council) (Center for Disaster Philanthropy).
Education: Teachers and educators are also common among asylum seekers, reflecting the widespread disruptions in educational systems in many conflict zones (American Immigration Council).
Skilled Trades:
Construction: There are numerous asylum seekers with skills in construction trades, such as bricklaying, masonry, and carpentry. These skills are in demand in various regions across the U.S. (Lewis Silkin).
Engineering and Technical Fields: Asylum seekers often include engineers and individuals with technical skills relevant to infrastructure and development projects (Center for American Progress).
Agricultural and Manual Labor:
Agricultural Work: Many asylum seekers from rural backgrounds possess skills in farming, animal husbandry, and other forms of agricultural work, which are valuable in the U.S. agricultural sector (American Immigration Council).
Manual Labor: General manual labor skills are common among asylum seekers who have worked in physically demanding environments in their home countries (Center for Disaster Philanthropy).
Language and Cultural Competence:
Multilingual Abilities: Many asylum seekers are multilingual, which can be an asset in diverse communities and workplaces, especially in roles requiring translation and cross-cultural communication (American Immigration Council).
Cultural Adaptability: The experience of navigating different cultural contexts can be valuable in roles that require cultural sensitivity and adaptability (American Immigration Council).
Challenges and Opportunities
Despite these skills, asylum seekers often face significant barriers to employment, including language barriers, lack of recognition of foreign qualifications, and the legal constraints on their ability to work while their cases are processed. Programs and policies that support skill assessment, certification, and job placement are critical to integrating asylum seekers into the workforce and maximizing their contributions to the economy (Center for American Progress) (Center for Disaster Philanthropy).
Efforts to better coordinate support for asylum seekers at federal, state, and local levels can help address these challenges, ensuring that their skills are recognized and utilized effectively (Center for American Progress).
Why do Conservatives hate such a talent pool so much. But then i don't understand their love for Lying, Felon, Sexual Predator Trump, either."Many have professional backgrounds and significant work experience, although their skills and qualifications can vary widely depending on their country of origin and personal circumstances."
Would you care to hazard a guess on just how many is "many"? Is it more than .001% or the total, do you think? Or less?The truth stares you in the face, yet you keep your eyes closed.
Here, let me help you by pointing out some phrases that most people understand to mean more than .001% even though you do not.
Healthcare: Many asylum seekers
Education: Teachers and educators are also common among asylum seekers,
Construction: There are numerous asylum seekers
Agricultural Work: Many asylum seekers
Manual Labor: General manual labor skills are common among asylum seekers
Multilingual Abilities: Many asylum seekers are multilingual - I would argue that the correct word is "most".
Cultural Adaptability: The experience of navigating different cultural contexts can be valuable in roles that require cultural sensitivity and adaptability - and this would apply to virtually all
Challenges and Opportunities
Despite these skills, asylum seekers often face significant barriers to employment, - especially from propagators of false myths about their skill level.
This is also a good example of the Conservatives lack of ability to only throw flames and not provide one iota of evidence.This is also a good example of the Conservatives lack of ability to only throw flames and not provide one iota of evidence.
----------
This is the reason why some one like Trump has progressed as far as he has.Well, it's a good example of liberal exaggerations and outright lies anyway.
What he said is obvious from observation, so prove the lie, just don't declare it.
Lots and lots of empty words, but no facts. Let me help:
I have worked side by side with construction worker teams made of of illegals. Almost to a person they are under skilled and don't know what they are doing, to the point I've watched as work is done over and over and over trying to get it right. Don't tell me - the experienced construction worker - that illegal aliens enter the country with construction skills.
Teachers? Don't make me laugh. The large majority can't even speak the language!
Many agricultural workers are asylum seekers? Or at least make the claim that they are in need of asylum? Yes, of course they do - they are being trained in the right words to say to get around the intent of the law. Does that make them skilled and an asset to American? Of course not.
Bottom line; I've worked with illegal aliens more than a few times, and while most try, and are hard workers (harder than most due to mistreatment by companies) they are not skilled in what our labor force needs.Not really facts there, just your own opinion, based on your own biases and past experiences. And I probably stress the word past.
So, to use your method of extremism, you have worked with ALL construction workers who are undocumented? Or worked with ALL illegal aliens?
I didn't think so."Don't tell me - the experienced construction worker - that illegal aliens enter the country with construction skills."
Data to support this idea? Construction doesn't exist in the countries these immigrants are coming from? Immigrants, legal and undocumented have been building our homes, businesses and our infrastructure for decades.
The U.S. is already facing a serious labor shortage, especially in key industries like construction and agriculture.
How w does Trump's Mass deportation help?
"The construction industry will need to attract an estimated 501,000 additional workers on top of the normal pace of hiring in 2024 to meet the demand for labor, according to a proprietary model developed by Associated Builders and Contractors. In 2025, the industry will need to bring in nearly 454,000 new workers on top of normal hiring to meet industry demand, and that’s presuming that construction spending growth slows significantly next year."
“Exclusionary policies and programs that do not welcome all to compete to build our public works projects, such as project labor agreement mandates, will further exacerbate this shortage and undermine significant investments made by taxpayers in infrastructure, clean energy and manufacturing projects,”
If foreign-born workers aren’t available, experts say there aren’t enough U.S.-born workers to fill in the gap. Even if I agreed with your statement that immigrant construction workers, who have been working for decades mind you, aren't skilled enough, what is Trump's plan to fill the shortage? Not just in construction but in all of the industries where we see significant numbers of immigrants. Who will fill the positions if Trump sweeps them out of the country? What is the consequence of exacerbating the current labor shortage?
Our labor force doesn't need them to fill the jobs they're in? Americans are lining up to get into meat packing jobs? Farm work? Construction? Hospitality work? Restaurant work? No, they're not.
Folks who support Trump's Mass deportation scheme never address the consequences of such a plan on the labor market. Please, address this aspect
We need expanded Visa programs, not mass deportation. This is so short-sighted.
https://www.abc.org/News-Media/News-Rel … -a-millionIt would seem Conservatives no longer care about a growing economy - they only care of kicking all these foreigners out of America (unless they graduated from an American university where Trump wants to give them a green card, lol)
You're absolutely right - that "growing economy" does absolutely nothing for me. It may pad the pockets of other foreign citizens still outside our borders, it may provide a portion of what those inside our borders need to survive and it may pad the pockets of businesses that hire them for peanuts.
But it does nothing at all for me or for the vast majority of Americans.It may do nothing for you, but that is your fault. I wouldn't speak for the vast majority of Americans, however. I am doing fine. My relatives are doing fine (except they don't how to not spend), all my friends are doing fine, all my workers are doing fine.
That is not to say there aren't a lot of people not doing fine, especially those who are discriminated against by Whites.What about those discriminated against by blacks? They don't count?
I really do hate to see such plain, overt racism exhibited on these forums.Show me the institutional discrimination by Blacks, then maybe I can see your point.
Otherwise, I must assume you are saying that it is racist to fight back against being discriminated against. Is that what you are meaning?Sure. It was in the courts just a while back, where Universities discriminated in favor of blacks and Asians sued. For myself, I went through affirmative action, where I was denied a job because my skin was the wrong color.
Do you require more?I'm sorry, I didn't realize the policy-makers at the Universities you reference were Black. I really doubt that is true.
I was never denied a job because I am White. Maybe it was qualifications.For the right wing resentment form of racism the first thing that you learn is that it is not possible for there EVER to be a minority cadidate more qualified than you as a white guy....
Yep, that is how I remember it.....It's a good thing that you can look into your crystal ball and know what those white guys are thinking!
But on the other side, there never was a minority candidate more qualified than I was. Or a white, or a woman, or any other sex or race. Not even an ET!
I don't think he needs a crystal ball - just eyes, ears, and a working brain.
"I was never denied a job because I am White. Maybe it was qualifications."
Or did you just not bother to watch what happened next?
"Bottom line; I've worked with illegal aliens more than a few times, and while most try, and are hard workers (harder than most due to mistreatment by companies) they are not skilled in what our labor force needs."
Since you've offered an anecdote, let me off for my own anecdote...
My local McDonald's would not exist, it would cease to operate if it did not have an immigrant workforce, legal or undocumented. So what are the ramifications of Trump's deportation plan? McDonald's shrinks it's footprint? How does this play out?If a company cannot pay reasonable wages, if it cannot operate within our laws, then let it die.
And that takes care of your McDonalds (assuming that your "immigrant workforce" is an effort to legitimize a bunch of criminal illegal aliens that are here violating laws every day.)Okay so then I can assume that the message Trump is sending is that companies already paying well above minimum wage, such as McDonald's, should just pay more to attract American workers as he sweeps out 5% of the workforce. The government has already set a reasonable wage, minimum wage.
What rate gets our teens back behind the counter? $20 an hour? How much does my Big Mac cost at that point? I always thought that a raise in the minimum wage was something Republicans were dead set against.
The same can be applied to all of the other industries Americans do not want to work in in any great number.
Same case with meat packing. I guess we'll all have to tighten our belts and forgo meat?
It's a tough, grotesque job. Workers stand shoulder to shoulder processing animal parts all day. But the average hourly wage is $18 an hour, which is well above minimum wage.
What should they pay? $30 an hour? Is the company going to absorb that cost and lower profit? That's laughable. Then we'll really have something to cry about in terms of food inflation.
Can you address the impact of Trump's deportation plan on the labor shortage currently in the country? What does the loss of 10 million jobs due to the economy? Simple question.
Trump isn't solving anything with his deportation plan, he's creating an even bigger problem.
Laws aren't written in stone, they're meant to be changed. They should be adapted to meet changing times.
Let's not forget the reality that our population is aging and declining due to lower birth rates. That is part of the reason we are experiencing labor shortages.Can you assume that Trump's message is something because of what I think?
I highly doubt it; I have no connection to Donald Trump and he has never heard of me.
Hard to believe there is a bigger problem than our culture, our country and our finances being taken over by citizens of another country. Some simple questions for you: what is the result of billions and billions of $$ given to foreigners that then send it home? What is the result of millions of school children that must be educated, fed and cared for...without resources to do any of it? What is the result of 20 million or so additional people on a justice system that is already underfunded? What is the long term result of open borders, of welcoming anyone that wants in, and then supporting them? What are the repercussions of allowing anyone in on our national security?
Hint: every one of those questions has a very negative answer for our nation.In an interview with Time magazine, Trump emphasized that speed was critical to his strategy for removing many of the at least 11 million people without legal status living in the US today.
“We’re going to be moving them out as soon as we get to it,” he said.
I have found nothing as to what comes after the deportations. What is the plan for the millions of job vacancies, many in crucial industries?
It appears that you support the plan and Trump. Maybe you are more aware of how he plans to address the aftermath of mass deportation? Or is there none? Millions more job vacancies will have no impact on the economy?I have as much idea of what Trump plans to do as you do.
But I know that I am sick and tired of paying the cost to support tens of millions of illegal aliens while people complain that businesses need to hire them (illegally) to stay in business. While they whine that costs will go up if we don't mistreat millions of workers. While they ignore the law and look the other way...just as Biden is doing now. As they exclaim that the border is closed while we watch thousands illegally cross every day.
Our southern border is an absolute disgrace.Then you are wasting your energy on being "sick and tired" of supporting a mirage. Once again I will point out that study after study debunks your myth that immigrants are a net cost to America.
I bet you don't feel one bit guilty or hypocritical each time you speed or do a rolling stop through a stop sign.Sorry - study after study points out the costs of illegal aliens to Americans.
Or did you mean actual immigrants; people that have become citizens of this country? Because I would likely agree with you if you do. I just don't think you mean that - you just use the terminology to confuse.I have given you those studies multiple times before, please do me the courtesy of providing even one legitimate study by an unbiased source that comes to a different conclusion, regardless of whether we are talking about legal (green card holders since you chose to ignore the normal meaning in today's discussions) or illegal immigrants.
I know you have. And they inevitably leave out most of the costs.
The discussion is always about illegal aliens (not immigrants for they have made to effort to follow the immigration procedures of the country). Of course, Biden is muddying the water by giving anyone crossing onto American soil the right to remain - does that make them an "immigrant"?How do you know? Did you read them and study their methodology or just assume they left it out because you didn't like the answer.? The ones I read said they specifically included all costs and then listed examples. They approached it as I would have as a professional cost and economic analyst. What is your bona fides?
Actually I did. And there were always things left out, things like free school lunches. The need for bilingual courtrooms.
Additional cops. The little things, mostly, but things that add up.
Did the studies you like include such things? Did it include increased road maintenance from 20,000,000 more people on the roads? More prisons? The need for ESL teachers in so many schools? The extra schools (and teachers, administrators, etc.)? Did it include increased park maintenance for the extra city parks required by those 20,000,000 people? How about more doctors, nurses and hospital rooms for that huge number of people?
Think of it this way - there about 3X as many illegal aliens in the country as there are in NYC. What is the budget of NYC, times three (Don't forget to include all the federal funds dedicated to the city)? How much do illegals pay in taxes? Which one is greater?And you think free-school lunches will move the needle- NOT.
More doctors and nurses means higher employment, more tax revenue and everything else that comes with a growing economy that migrants bring us.
Think of it this way, there are fewer illegal aliens in this country now than in 2007.
Illegals pay a lot in taxes.
In short, Trump and the Conservatives are problem-makers, not problem-solvers.
Isn't it interesting how Conservatives have almost totally thrown what they said they used to believe in into the trash.
Family Values - They want to elect again a sexual predator who frequently stepped out on his wives.
Strong Defense - They have become isolationists
Free Trade - they are becoming more protectionist than the Democrats are.
Small Gov't - they now want to make it as big as possible to kick the immigrants out and subdue women, gays, and other lifestyles they object to.
Liberty and Freedom - that is long gone unless you are White, male, and Protestant.Agreed! I can't see (economists can't either) how we can vacate millions of workers without severe consequences to our economy.
All MAGA folks know is that they love the sound of mass deportation. For them, Trump is so smart and competent, he'll figure it all out.
It's all deflection when they're asked how mass deportation will actually impact our economy as a result of worsening the labor shortage.
It is the difference between humane liberals and ...
He understands what humanity is, others don't, Why do you lump spouses who were brought here as young children 10 years ago and children in with asylum seekers who just crossed the border yesterday?
Just like Trump is "buying" votes by threatening to put asylum seekers in concentration camps and deporting them so they cannot produce supplies to meet demand?And there is the answer. The rest of America doesn't matter to Biden; his "heart" is with the illegals that require us to pay for their needs. Thank you President Biden!
No, no thanks here. Both Trump and biden have not take a befitting course to resolve immigration challenge. Both are at odds. But it's obvious that Trump seems to favour America, not Americans. And, biden, is favouring the foreigners, to the point of dividing Americans.
Actually, Biden did, several times, starting with the bill he proposed back in 2021. Unfortunately, the Trump and the Conservatives said NO, just as they did with the latest Biden effort to help solve the problem with the bipartisan border deal.
For DECADES Conservatives have shot down EVERY proposal for immigration reform, and this is even before TRUMP. It is plain as day, Conservatives have always wanted a talking point for elections rather than real reform.
Trump does not favor America OR Americans - he ONLY favors himself.
Biden does NOT favor foreigners over Americans, Biden simply wants to solve the problem in a humane way. It is Trump that is dividing America - he has been doing it since 2015.Conservatives shoot down "immigration reform" bills because they are primarily methods of letting more people into the country. That's not what we need and it IS what needs to be curtailed.
Biden certainly does favor foreigners over Americans; that's why he keeps trying to make it legal for ever more to enter and feed off American citizens. It isn't about being humane or he would take from Americans what they need in order to feed the rest of the world. As Biden brings in more and more people for Americans to support we are seeing a consensus that Americans are tired of it. In that manner, at least, Biden is not only not dividing, he is healing the rift, albeit not in the manner he hoped for.How do you say such nonsense as " he keeps trying to make it legal for ever more to enter and feed off American citizens. "? Especially after he was forced by Conservatives to institute a probably unconstitutional policy of forcing asylum seekers who don't cross at a port of entry back to Mexico.
Why didn't you and the Conservates champion the bipartisan bill that contained that provision? Because Trump wanted an election year talking point and for no other reason.
And again, I must offer up the TRUTH to your myth that immigrants cost America money. Study after study after study show that is simply a right-wing myth.
Author who interviewed Trump six times calls Trump's cognitive ability into question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyERt71Q4hATrump is now campaigning on raising the deficits $150 billion over 10 years and Conservatives are eating it up!! Amazing!
Actually, what he is proposing is to do away with the tax on tips, something I actually support. He is doing it, of course, "to buy" votes (as someone here puts it} and he must lie when he does it (something normal for him). He implies he will do it by executive action in the first few days in office.
I think it is the Conservatives who say something like that must be "paid for". I agree. Pay for it by raising the taxes on the ultra rich.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 … tion-tips/FINALLY, Biden is going on the attack against Lying, Felon, Sexual Predator Trump, and he is using the TRUTH to do it. Here is the way this article starts out - a series of truisms:
"The president and his campaign are blasting the presumptive Republican nominee as a criminal and a racist who was found liable for sexual assault and who is now being driven so “crazy” by his loss in 2020 that he’s been left “unhinged.”
Here is the problem though - almost 40% of Americans (mostly MAGA) think those are exactly the qualifications you need to be president. Very Sad.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/21/politics … index.htmlDenying elections is now the "go-to" method of explaining your loss for Conservatives, even when only Conservatives are involved, lol. Basically, that is admitting that Conservatives run rigged elections.
Ultra-MAGA Bob Goode is saying if he loses his primary in Virginia, the election was rigged and he is going to investigate. (He is trailing slightly in a race that is still too close to call 3 days after the polls closed.)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/21/politics … index.htmlTrump says he wants foreign nationals who graduate from US colleges to ‘automatically’ receive green cards. Is Trump wanting these Green Card holders to vote for him? What happened to waiting your turn?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/20/politics … index.htmlLOVE LETTERS FROM TRUMP SUPPORTERS:
On March 19, 2023, "Leave Trump alone or Bragg will get assassinated"
March 22 - "Just wanted to say I can't wait to watch you swing from a rope in your military tribunal ... you better get on your knees and pray to Jesus Christ your gonna find your maker soon."
April 3, 2023 - "When your fat f**k DA is more interested in a witch hunt on president Trump than prosecuting crime in you sh*t hole city, its time to get rid of both of you n*****rs.
April 4, 2023 "Alvin Bragg is nothing but a racist n*****r."
March 24, 2023 - DA office sent a letter with white powder and a note stating "Alvin: I'm going to kill you."
April 12, 2023 - more white powder and a note with images of Bragg and Trump saying "you will be sorry"
Trump supporter in Utah posted on Lie Social Heading to New York to fulfill my dream of [eradicating] another of George Soros two-bit political [hack] DAs. I’ll be waiting in the courthouse parking garage with my suppressed Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm to smoke a radical fool prosecutor should never have been elected.” (FBI killed this guy when they tried to arrest him)
April 15, 2024 - Two bomb threats to the residences of to DA people involved in the case
Trump certainly brings out the best in people.Can someone please explain how the mindsets of the following groups are different from each other?
MGGA - Make Germany Great Again followers of Hitler
MRGA - Make Russia Great Again followers of Putin
MVGA - Make Venezuela Great Again followers of Maduro
MCGA - Make China Great Again followers of Xi
Aren't they all equal brainwashed? Aren't they all equally racist (each in their own way)? Aren't they all more prone to violence against those they dislike more so than other groups?
Just asking.Just asking, asking too. Thought this seems ridiculous. How about: MNGA- Make Nigeria Great Again? The north of Nigeria, is lately home to violent crimes. The South has it's hot spot.
Sorry, I couldn't think of a leader to put with Nigeria that people would instantly know.
It should be obvious by now that Trump's xenophobic ideas were not well thought out. Just as with most of the stuff he comes up with. They were an reactionaries reaction to the xenophobia that feeds his base. They all are not looking for an answer really. Econ 101 tells everyone what happens when supply does not keep up with demand.
In the debates, I can hope that Biden presses Trump for his solutions on this matter and Trump provides a vacuous reply for all to see."Econ 101 tells everyone what happens when supply does not keep up with demand."
Sure does. I wish Biden had taken that class before his shutdown and giveaway programs.Shutdown? Another far-right rewrite of history attempt.
Tell that to the millions that lost their jobs during COVID. Or was that just another feeble attempt at a liberal lie?
In this specific case, it is the closing of many businesses during the pandemic. Other people, other times, might reference other things; our cop shop shut down the other day for a holiday.
I'll tell it to the millions whose lives were saved, including those who lost their job, because of it. Again, you highlight a fundamental difference between Conservatives and Liberals - Liberals care about the well-being of our fellow-man or woman. Even Trump did for a short while until he saw his ratings fall.
Good reply; because you think it was in a good cause means it didn't happen or Biden didn't do it.
Biden didn't do what? It was Trump who shut down the government (well, he did that too), shut down businesses is what I meant.
Give him a break - his hatred of Biden made him forget that it was Trump and DeSantis and other Republican/Democratic governors who shut everything down and gave away the first billions.
Covid-19 shutdown or economic shutdown? Don't they mean the same thing?
This is Trump in a nutshell:
"Former Trump Organization executive vice president Barbara Res told MSNBC’s Ali Velshi that Trump once made a joke about a German residential manager the company had hired before turning to some Trump Organization executives who happened to be Jewish.
“He was bragging amongst executives about how great the guy was and he was a real gentleman and so neat and clean and then he looked at a couple of our executives who [b]happen to be Jewish, and he said, ‘Watch out for this guy, he sort of remembers the ovens,’ and then smiled[/b\,” said Res, who left her role in 1998 after she claimed Trump mistreated her and other employees."
What unbrainwashed, sane person would want that man for President?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … e&ei=8Unbrainwashed, sane, or not, ealh person has to decide. Many wierd or comical lovers though sane could still vote Trump. That's human nature. Is the late James Galagham, of Great Britain insane when he vote for his rival, Magarete Thetchar? Nope!
Is it sane for an American to want to destroy our democracy and America?
No sane American will like to vote for a candidate to destroy democracy in America. Do Democrat or Republican field lunatics?
Only one party equates being held accountable for breaking the law to destroying democracy.
The other party believes that when someone attempts to steal a presidential election by breaking the law, and then incites a domestic terror attack on the country's Congress to try and achieve that theft, that that actually does equate to trying to destroy our democracy.
The equivalency that the right is trying to make between those two stances is comical. It's the latest example of them living in an alternate reality.
So the Republican Party is the mad house bent on destroying democracy in America, and destroying the country?
Related Discussions
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 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...
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 14 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...
- 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...
- 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...
- 19
Has Trump already lost the election in 2020?
by Stevennix2001 3 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...