Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
it would seem there is no there or NY has some very poor investigators. Maybe this new AG should take care of the lawbreakers that are at random just killing people, and brutalizing citizens. Maybe this guy should work on these forms of crimes, in my book crimes of violence are more important than Trump's never-ending investigations to nowhere. they have had his taxes for over a year and a half... Where are all the crimes you felt would have him sitting in jail?
"Two, it is the DA's job to prosecute all crimes - which I gather is not high on your list to do."
When they charge Trump with a crime it will become high on my list, but we're going on five years... maybe you should not hold your breath.
hhttps://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-nyc-crime-upper-east-side-attack-mayorttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL1yk6BiOfQI think the wheels of justice move painfully slow. It shouldn't move at a snails pace but I suppose that's what happens when people refuse to sit for depositions and when prosecutors need to sue to seek documents and then defendants sue to keep them private and on and on. The high profile nature of this case as well as the money involved will probably keep it tied up in the courts for years to come. That's what high paid lawyers can do.
It is very much a fact that a good high paid lawyer can keep a case dragging on. It is also true an AG can ask the court for a subpoena to drag one in for a deposition. But, judges look carefully into why, and for what purpose a citizen is being asked to give a deposition, are they pertinent to the AG case?
I venture to say, if there was anything in Trump's taxes even if he forgot to dot i, they would go after him. They have harassed Trump for his entire presidency.
I have said for some time now this was a sad witchhunt. And they at this point look very foolish. Could they look more foolish-- oh yeah. They will kick into high gear with rhetoric if he runs."They have harassed Trump for his entire presidency. " - Just like they should harass John Gotti if he were president. Them are crooks, after all. Trump has been scamming and conning people all of his life. Every time he gets caught, he settles and gets a NDA.
"I have said for some time now this was a sad witchhunt. " - [i]Yes you have, and you have been wrong all of this time as well. But, you certainly have a right to your opinion, even it lacks any foundation.
Yes, very slowly indeed. Look how long it took DOJ to file seditious conspiracy charges after Sharlee and Wilderness kept insisting "there was no there, there", lol
Boy do they have egg on their faces (to borrow phrase I just read).
I think the AG case is a civil one, and you could be very right in having it tied up for a long time. The DA case, however, is a criminal case and much less susceptible to the delaying tactics.
If Trump hadn't obstructed every step of the way, it would have been a lot faster. Yet, you already know that in spite of your faux impatience.
I remember someone claiming there were no charges of sedition...until there now are.
Seems the 'there are no charges' argument only works some of the time when what is clearly seen with one's own eyes sees that crime. Pretty sure we've all seen Trump inflating his assets and then deflating them on released tax forms that are already in the public sphere.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trum … sistencies
In actual non-denialism news, Trump loses bid to protect documents submitted to the National Archives from the January 6 Committee. 8-1. Not even close.Michigan.
And if you want to see the sad brainwashing effects of Donald Trump's Big Lie on some Americans, watch this short clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFIVWYecqTsGiuliani coordinated the fraudulent electors. Giuliani will be going to jail. Just a question of whether he flips on Trump to avoid that.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/giuliani-rep … 12458.htmlGiuliani, members of the Trump team and "news media" people.
How can so many people be so blind is astounding.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/20/poli … index.html
The most insidious part of the Georgia bill:
Under the law, ostensibly enacted in response to a "significant lack of confidence in Georgia election systems," the secretary of state ( who refused to go along with Mr. Trump) is no longer chair of the State Election Board; that statewide elected (by the people!) official will be replaced by a "chairperson elected by the General Assembly (Republican)." The board issues regulations governing elections, investigates fraud allegations and significantly it sets the rules on "what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote."
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger , who famously did the right thing in the face of unjust (and potentially illegal) pressure, has been largely stripped of his authority over state elections. The state board of elections will be led by a legislature-approved chair, who will lead a panel in which most of the members are chosen by Republican legislators: the same legislators who sided with Mr. Trump during his efforts to overturn his defeat in the state.
So yes, Georgia is clearly paving the way to override the will of the voters if they don't produce the desired outcome.This is worth repeating So yes, Georgia is clearly paving the way to override the will of the voters if they don't produce the desired outcome.
People, please. Politicians have you in the weeds. We have a massive structural problem. They have you thinking about Dropbox locations, bottles of water handed out and poll place hours. Really they are currently shoring up systems that failed their coup attempt in 2020.
Dozens of election reform laws changing rules regarding how voters cast ballots, several have also diminished secretaries of states' authority over elections or shifted aspects of election administration to highly partisan bodies, such as state legislators themselves or unevenly bipartisan election boards.
"Inserting partisan actors into election administration ... is really a worrying trend when you understand it in the context of what happened in 2020,"
This is where it matters. This is where elections will be technically stolen.
"Analyzing the Voting Rights Lab's state-level bill tracker and bill descriptions, ABC News identified at least eight states, including battlegrounds Arizona and Georgia, that have enacted 10 laws so far this year that change election laws by bolstering partisan entities' power over the process or shifting election-related responsibilities from secretaries of state."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dozen-s … d=79408455
"Difficult" people like Brad Raffansberger of Georgia and his counterparts have been removed across battleground states. I'm really wondering how our election results will hold next time around."several have also diminished secretaries of states' authority over elections or shifted aspects of election administration to highly partisan bodies, such as state legislators themselves or unevenly bipartisan election boards." - Out of all of the restrictions they have put in place to stop a repeat performance in 2022 and 2024, THAT is the most insidious of all. Hundreds of Trump acolytes are running for these low-level (and a few upper-level) jobs for the sole purpose of manipulating how the vote is counted to insure Republican victories. They make no bones about what their desired outcome is.
You do know you can just post a reply without replying to your original post each time, right?
No, I don't see a button that lets me do that.
There is a reply button under each post that allows you to reply to a post. In addition there is a much bigger "post a reply" button to the bottom right of the screen (before "related discussions") that allows a simple post to the forum without indicating it is directed towards any specific post.
Oh, so that is what that big button is for, lol. Never really thought about it.
It's the orange "Post a Reply" button at the bottom-right of the page.
GA
An interesting thought - call Trump to testify in the defense of the insurrectionists.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/26/politics/ … index.htmlAnother sentenced couple who came to listen to a speech and then committed illegal acts after Trump directed them to the Capitol.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/stain-americ … 42178.htmlI actually believe their story and their remorse and therefore think the sentence was just. Hopefully, they became Democrats as a result.
Hopefully they learned that they are in charge of their actions, and not to blindly follow anyone whether they be Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or anything else.
I understand this is contrary to Democrat (and Republican) policy, but it is what made this country. Not blind allegiance to a political party.I absolutely agree with that statement. Try to convince Trump Republicans (or Sanders Democrats) of that.
Republicans already understand that we are individuals responsible for ourselves. It is part of the Republican platform for individuals.
Really, then why are so many blaming Trump at their sentencing hearings?
I have yet to see a criminal not lie. Have you?
Anything to get a lighter sentence, and if blame can be shifted to someone else then the claim will be made. True or false, it will be made. Or do you believe that simple truth that we've watched for hundreds of years is not true at all - that criminals will not lie on the stand, will not blame others for their wrongdoings, will happily accept any sentence handed down?
Then why won't Republicans you speak of let women terminate their pregnancy if they want? Why have Republicans continuously tried to keep women second class citizens? Why wouldn't Conservatives let Blacks have the vote? Why wouldn't Conservatives let women have the vote? I think you are really fooling yourself if you actually believe today's Republicans believe in individuality. Their ACTIONS put the lie to that belief.
"Then why won't Republicans you speak of let women terminate their pregnancy if they want?"
Are you really so egotistical that you refuse to acknowledge that their whole program is based on the idea that human beings are being murdered in every abortion done? Is your opinion of your own opinions so great that no others need be even acknowledged?
No Republican wants women as second class citizens.
Conservatives are happy to have Blacks vote.
Conservatives are happy to have women vote.
The real question is why you make such false statements. Is it really necessary to make your statements seem reasonable?Your opinion is based on doctrinaire conservative religious dictates. Mine is based on the law and common sense.
If no Trump Republican wants women to be second class citizen, then why do they treat them that way. Actions speak louder than words! Of course conservatives want Black (whose vote they are still trying to suppress to this day) and women votes. You just have a funny way of asking for it.
So, which of my statements are false?First, my opinion is that RvsW was a reasonable compromise and I'm happy to accept it as law. I did not mention my own thoughts, just those of the pro-lifers, and it is you that have decided what I think without ever hearing it from me. Go back and re-read my first sentence (after quoting you), then think about what the word "their means in the context of that paragraph. Consider that it was not "our" but "their" as you do so.
Second, you are confirming what I said by refusing to even discuss the murder of infants in the womb, instead defaulting to the "my body I can do what I wish" of the pro-abortion crowd.
The three I listed are false - nothing more than your own negative bias of conservatives and far removed from any reality.First, I see what you mean. You didn't actually ascribe your comment as "your" opinion. I jumped to that conclusion based on my reading of your overall worldview.
Second, I am not refusing to discuss anything. I simply stated my opinion is based on the law, and belief in individual liberty, and common sense.
Third, my bias against Conservatives is based on 150+ years of actions that, in total, act against individual liberty and social equity. I am working on a book to make just that case.
Fourth, I responded to the three you listed.You might keep that mistake in mind when you ascribe an "overall worldview" to me, for you haven't' the faintest what that might be. This is just another in the long list of mistakes you have made in that regard, for I have probably indicated at least 50 times on these forums that I support the right to an abortion and am content with RvW.
The law prohibits murder of anyone, without limiting it to a certain age. Those people find that killing an unborn child (defined as anything from a fertilized egg to a heartbeat to months since inception) is murder - that fits nicely within your statement that you work only with the law.
Conservatives against "social equity". Explain how Biden removing 93% of the population from consideration for the nations highest justice system job is "social equity".
Democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to individual liberty and equity; they just choose a different point to attack.I only have your words to rely on. You might be more careful in how you phrase things.
Is it social equity that in the history of the Supreme Court there has never been a Black woman? He is simply fixing systemic racism."He is simply fixing systemic racism."
Now there's an angle I should have seen coming; from, possibly, apparent racial discrimination to racial justice warrior attacking systemic racism.
That was dizzying.
GAIt is easy to justify on this ground (so long as the candidate is qualified) and many other grounds, such as diversifying the Court to make it more representative of society has a whole.
It is easy for you to justify. I don't see it that way.
GAOf course you don't, you are Conservative and the Conservative worldview prohibits it.
That's nuts. My Conservative values don't prohibit consideration of your claim, they just think it's wrong.
I think SCOTUS nominations have always involved politics, and that is wrong. They shouldn't, but history has proven it is unavoidable. President Biden's approach has just taken that politicization to a new and higher level.
GAOkay then, a new and lower level. Now we have moved from sub-sets to sub-sub-sets. I recall one other response that elaborated on this; how many sub-subs will supporters of this idea entertain?
GA
I didn't say that the Conservative ideology, as practiced in America, prohibits you from considering anything. I am saying it prohibits you from understanding that what Biden, Trump, and Reagan did is right.
So long as the nominee is qualified (which many of Trump's lower level picks were not) I don't see why making the Court reflect America is a political move. It is an equitable move.Is it "equitable" to the individual people that have done nothing wrong? Or just to your view of what society should be as a group - it's alright to punish or harm individuals because it looks better to have a mixed group on the bench?
If the latter, when will you discriminate against blacks to hire a Hispanic? An American Indian? An Asian? Will you require an Innuit to sit there? Why would you pick blacks to benefit from legal discrimination first? Or is just the most vocal minority that benefits from your discrimination?Face it, Wilderness, you will never get it. If you had been raised Black, you would.
I was quite careful on how I phrased it: you just didn't like what was there so changed it to mean my personal opinion.
Sure. He is using racism and discrimination by the system. That's what I said, isn't it? Biden is using racism, sexism and blatant discrimination against individuals in order to "fix" (read: look good) so-called "systemic racism".Actually no, he isn't. Being a Conservative, you don't really know what racism is so I don't expect you to understand.
If you think refusing to consider 93% of the population, based solely on race and sex, isn't racism (or discrimination) then I'd have to say that someone doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
You don't even believe it violates the law, specifically the law on equal employment, do you? All because liberals insist we look good. Rather sad.Is it an employment though? Don't Presidents have the right to appoint whoever they want to positions within the government?
This is a false equivalency in claiming that this opportunity falls under the Equal Opportunity Act as an employment opportunity:
https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii … s-act-1964
(b) The term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as defined in section 2102 of Title 5 [United States Code])
Section 2101 of Title 5:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2102
Basically, you and all other conservatives are willing to ignore the process for all previous Presidential nominations to make new rules for this one. This is basically the latest example of conservatives changing the norms for their own benefit and completely misunderstanding what the laws of our country actually say.
There's the really sad part. If you want to throw around petty insults against Democrats, please educate yourself on the merits of the laws you're quoting so you look less foolish.I agree that a SCOTUS appointment is, has been, and should be a presidential prerogative. And, if I really stretch that thought it might also cover your `Is it employment?" question, maybe.
However, that thought doesn't have to ignore the possible application of the OP.
GAThe possible application of the original post I was responding to would be this one:
'You don't even believe it violates the law, specifically the law on equal employment, do you? All because liberals insist we look good. Rather sad.'
Which is a complete falsehood because the law specifically lists the exemption for these types of appointments. So when an OP misunderstands the laws to try and assert some moral high ground that doesn't exist, I'm definitely going to relish in the Schadenfraude of watching that argument burn to the ground.
And I'm not sure why you need to stretch to understand the differences between a job and an appointment. It's pretty clearly written into the laws I cited.Then, why now?
"I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Trump said Sept. 19, 2020, during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He later added: "It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman. I haven’t chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list."
Decades earlier, President Ronald Reagan said that if he were elected, he would nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. "It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," he said at a news conference weeks before the 1980 election
In a 2003 interview with the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, Peter Wallison, Reagan’s White House counsel at the time of Scalia’s appointment in 1986, said that Reagan "wanted to be sure that he could appoint the first Italian-American … he felt that it would be great to put an Italian-American on the Supreme Court."
Maybe is not the "woman" part that causes the "outrage"? I wonder.
Excellent point, and one I was unaware of, that the US is not subject to the Equal Opportunity laws.
I wonder, then, why the government makes any effort at all to follow those laws. Why does it even try to provide equal opportunity employment? And why would courts ever consider a case of racial discrimination (for employment) by the government?
I would say that following the "norm" (as companies have done for centuries in this country) may not be legal. There is always a "first time" when such is challenged.
But hey, if it helps with your denigration of Republicans, carry on! (Even though I did not mention Democrats and, as is your usual modus operandi you changed the wording to fit your insult.)Distracting from being wrong by trying to haggle over words to insist you weren't talking about Democrats when you used the word liberals. Typical tactic of yours to distract when you post something so uneducated and get called out on it.
Perhaps you're right. Certainly you use the tactic on a regular basis and so should understand it far better than I.
Wilderness has proven to be a master at haggling about words, lol.
What 93% of the population? Which world did you get that figure from?
* White alone, not Hispanic - 60.3%
* Black alone, not Hispanic - 13.4%
* Hispanic - 18.5%
And, NO, it is not racism OR discrimination (which are two entirely different things which us liberals are aware of).
Since when was "equal employment" ever a consideration in picking a Supreme Court nominee?
All liberals don't care that we "look good" (but Trump certainly cares what he looks like). All liberals care about social equity, however. And not having a qualified Black woman on the bench is simply not equitable."What 93% of the population? Which world did you get that figure from?"
Approximately 14% of Americans are black, approximately 50% of that number are female, for a total of 7% of the population. 100% (all Americans) - 7%( the number to be considered) = 93% (the number that will NOT be considered) of the population. Clear enough?
Go read the Equal Opportunity act: it states very plainly that it is illegal to limit consideration for a job based on sex, religion, race etc. Here: I'll quote the applicable section:
"(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
LOL As we look around at the number of "tokens", people in their position because of their sex, or religion, or race, or gender and you don't think liberals want to look good? What fantasy world are you living in? There can be no other reason for Biden's limiting of his nominees to a specific sex and race but to "look good" - certainly there is a plethora of qualified people that are male, Asian, Hispanic, Caucasian...but he will only consider black females. The practice is falling, but is still alive and well.
You seem to believe that systemic or institutional racism is just a figure of our imagination. A single and stark example and short of my having to print it in Braille, the message should be clear. It irritates me that you conservative types spend so much time in denial of what is clear to anyone not having their eyes wide shut.... so what spin do you have to offer this time? Conservatives never learn and never change.
-------
Institutional racism in the housing sector could be seen as early as the 1930s with the Home Owners' Loan Corporation. Banks would determine a neighborhood's risk for loan default and redline neighborhoods that were at high risk of crime. These neighborhoods tended to be African-American neighborhoods, whereas whites were able to receive housing loans. Over several decades, as whites left the city to move to nicer houses in the suburbs, predominantly African-American neighborhoods fell apart. Retail stores also started moving to the suburbs to be closer to the customers and to avoid being robbed.[195]
Commencing with President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s and through the 1960s, the FHA contributed to the economic growth of the white population by providing loan guarantees to banks, which in turn financed white homeownership and enabled white flight,[196] and it did not make loans available to black people.[197] As minorities were not able to get financing and aid from banks, whites pulled ahead in equity gains. Moreover, many college students were then, in turn, financed with the equity in homeownership that was gained by having gotten the earlier governmengovernment handout, which was not the same accorded to black and other minority families. The institutional racism of the FHA's 1943 model has been tempered after the recent recession by changes in the 1970s and most recently by President Obama's efforts[198] to stabilize the housing losses of 2008 with his Fair Housing Finance (GSE) reform.[199].
These changes, which were brought on by government-funded programs and projects, have led to a significant change in inner-city markets.[200] Due to robberies, black neighborhoods have been left with fewer food stores, but more liquor stores.[201] The low-income neighborhoods are left with independently owned smaller grocery stores that tend to have higher prices. Poor consumers are left with the option of traveling to middle-income neighborhoods, or spending more for less.[202]
The racial segregation and disparities in wealth between European Americans and African-American people include legacies of historical policies. In the Social Security Act of 1935, agricultural workers and servants, who disproportionately were black, were excluded because key whites did not want governmental assistance to change the agrarian system.[203] In the Wagner Act of 1935, "blacks were blocked by law from challenging the barriers to entry into the newly protected labor unions and securing the right to collective bargaining."[203] In the National Housing Act of 1939, the property appraisal system tied property value and eligibility for government loans to race.[203][204] The 1936 Underwriting Manual used by the Federal Housing Administration to guide residential mortgages gave 20% weight to a neighborhood's protection, for example, zoning ordinances, deed restrictions, high speed traffic arteries, from adverse influences, such as infiltration of inharmonious racial groups.[205] Thus, white-majority neighborhoods received the government's highest property value ratings, and whites were eligible for government loans and aid. Richard Rothstein, in his book "The Color of Law," tells of a history of residential segregation in America. He noted that government institutions in all branches and at all levels and were complicit in excluding African Americans from home-ownership. "We have created a caste system in this country, with African Americans kept exploited and geographically separate by racially explicit government policies," he wrote.[206] In covering topics like racial covenants - where loans to developers were contingent on contracts that spelled out specific exclusion of black people, he showed that it was a policy spelled out by the Federal Housing Administration's underwriting manual, which denied any guarantees for a federal bank loan to a developer if they were to sell properties to African Americans in white communities.[207] Homeowners in one such subdivision, Levittown, Long Island, New York, were forbidden to rent or sell to persons "other than members of the Caucasian race".[208] Between 1934 and 1962, less than two percent of government-subsidized housing went to non-white people.[204]
In 1968, the Fair Housing Act (FHA) was signed into law to eliminate the effects of state-sanctioned racial segregation. But it failed to change the status quo as the United States remained nearly segregated as in the 1960s. A newer discriminating lending practice was the subprime lending in the 1990s. Lenders targeted high-interest subprime loans to low-income and minority neighborhoods who might be eligible for fair-interest prime loans. Securitization, mortgage brokers and other non-deposit lenders, and legislative deregulation of the mortgage lending industry all played a role in promoting the subprime lending market.[205]
Numerous audit studies conducted in the 1980s in the United States found consistent evidence of discrimination against African Americans and Hispanics in metropolitan housing markets.[209]
The long-outlawed practice of redlining (in which banks choke off lending to minority communities) recently re-emerged as a concern for federal bank regulators in New York and Connecticut. A settlement with the Justice Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was the largest in the history of both agencies, topping $33 million in restitution for the practice from New Jersey's largest savings bank. The bank had been accused of steering clear of higher crime neighborhoods and favoring whites in granting loans and mortgages, finding that, of the approximately 1,900 mortgages made in 2014, only 25 went to black applicants. The banks' executives denied bias, and the settlement came with adjustments to the banks' business practices. This followed other successful efforts by the federal, state and city officials in 2014 to expand lending programs directed at minorities, and in some cases to force banks to pay penalties for patterns of redlining in Providence, Rhode Island; St. Louis, Missouri; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Buffalo and Rochester, New York. The Justice Department also has more active redlining investigations underway,[210] and officials have stated to reporters that "redlining is not a thing of the past". It has evolved, they explained, into a more politically correct version, where bankers do not talk openly about denying loans to black people. The Justice Department officials noted that some banks quietly had institutionalized bias in their operations.[211] They have moved their operations out of minority communities entirely, while others have moved in to fill the void and compete for clients. Such management decisions are not the stated intent, it is left unspoken so that even the bank's other customers are unaware that it is occurring.[citation needed] The effect on minority communities can be profound as home ownership, a prime source of neighborhood stability and economic mobility can affect its vulnerability to blight and disrepair. In the 1960s and 1970s, laws were passed banning the practice; its return is far less overt, and while the vast majority of banks operate legally, the practice appears to be more widespread as the investigation revealed a vast disparity in loans approved for black people as compared to whites in similar situations.[212]
---------
All of this sounds pretty 'systemic' to me. And you know what, we are still dealing with its residue today.It certainly was. Was. It irritates you when Conservatives refuse to acknowledge it...and you immediately go back nearly 100 years and begin to point it out.
I've seen it with my own eyes. My first real job was in a manufacturing facility that had just converted the segregated bathrooms into one large one, and there was no female bathroom. 50 years ago, that was, and I haven't seen it since. The large majority of discrimination today is against anyone with white skin - something you refuse to acknowledge and yes, it is irritating. You want to talk about systemic discrimination and racism, let's discuss the current SCOTUS case of universities accepting students based on their color. Let's discuss the President refusing to even consider any male or anyone with anything but black skin. That's just as much racism as the cases you list.
Yes, there is still some discrimination - we will never wipe it all out, given that people are people - but it isn't a dot on the map of yesteryears practices. Quit pretending it is ubiquitous today and understand that we ALL suffer discrimination in one form or another. Work towards ending it ALL rather than just a part of it and we will all be better off.Wilderness, you own eyes are probably myopic, you see what you want to see. YOUR viewpoint is hardly an accurate assessment of the reality of this situation. That is why the struggle continues.
I have given you specific examples of systemic and institutional racism in my discussion and all you have to offer me in return is BS?
It is that rightwing res ntment rearing its head to hear only what it is you want to hear. I said nothing about ubiquitous. Compared with what was taken from nonwhites over decades of time, anything whites gripe about in this matter insignificant in comparison.
How silly, white men being the victims of structural and institutional racism and bias? More of that sort of rubbish from that Tucker Carlson guy?
We can't correct what happened in the past, but I certainly insist that the true nature of these events be revealed as part of American History and not be shrouded in denial and mystery.Affirmative action - institutional racism. College entrance requirements = black skin. To require a caucasian to give money to a black because 100 years ago a different caucasian discriminated against a different black is racism.
There is no other way to look at it.
Yet it is being done; people today, completely innocent of any wrongdoing are being punished for what other people long ago did, all based on color of skin. And you can't see the discrimination because you don't look at individuals you look at historical treatment of groups of people, equating the group to the individual.AND he looks at the CURRENT way White, mainly conservative, people, as a group, are treating minorities.
You still don't get it, Wilderness, without these programs Blacks would not be hired,period, qualified or not, it is a reality not completely unknown based on relatively recent history. The best man for the job had always been white, period. What had to happen to change that?
BS. It is highly illegal to discriminate today, and anyone that tries opens themselves to a lawsuit.
At one time it was useful but that time is long gone and the only thing it accomplishes today is to elevate one skin color over another.Being illegal doesn't stop Trump from doing anything. It is illegal for racists cops to kill Blacks, yet they do. Study after study after study show racists employers break the law all of time discriminating against minorities - TODAY. Study after study after study show women still get paid, on average, less than men doing the same work, with the same experience (assuming they can get the job in the first place).
Please step out of your world of "I wish" for a moment.
You don't get it Credence (tongue in cheek). Stopping racism against minorities is, by conservative definition, racism against whites.
The parts contribute to the whole, Widerness. There is some correlation as to how Blacks generally vote and our acknowledgement of a common experience in American life that we all know and recognize that is, of course, invisible to you.
Fair enough. Just as the racism exhibited by blacks towards other races is invisible to you.
So, even if true, does deflecting make reality any different or less pernicious?
Credence - it is called a "blind eye" when someone sees something but it doesn't register in their conscience or on their conscience. In this example, Wilderness says It certainly was. Was. It irritates you when Conservatives refuse to acknowledge it...and you immediately go back nearly 100 years and begin to point it out.
I'll reference the second phrase first - he says you went back nearly 100 years (you should have gone back 200 years to the beginning of slavery) "to begin to point it out". The intellectual blindness is comes in two parts: you need history to show "systemic", which he is denying you to do and he didn't bother to mention you brought it current, at least to 2014. I am sure you could find good examples in 2021 as well.
Then to the "Was" comment. With that word, Wilderness is declaring systemic racism is no longer present in America. The fact that he believes Whites are systematically discriminated against in American society is clear evidence of intellectual blindness to the realities of life in America.
Wilderness should quit "pretending" that systemic racism against Blacks and other minorities in this country is NOT ubiquitous. It may not be as "everywhere" as it was 100 years ago, but it is STILL everywhere.I simply wanted to demonstrate to him that systemic/institutional racism did in fact exist and because of its intensity there lies much of the reason blacks are behind by so many of the yardsticks use to measure success in America.
Wilderness told me in so many words that systemic racism did not exist, now he acknowledges that 'perhaps' it did in the past. If I can get him to open his eyes and ears just a bit mor he can see and acknowledge the rest?
It is enough to say that not acknowledging the systemic racism of the past and its effect in the present is the same as saying that just because you remove the dagger, the wound inflicted disappears in the same instant.
Wilderness chooses to be obtuse, when in every positive societal standard, whit s are consistently ahead, and that is not due to coincidence.That would be a great achievement if you can. It is an uphill battle though given his ingrained conservative philosophy.
As for Roe vs Wade, which you said was a good compromise, why do conservatives want to dismantle it?
Hold on there bud. You need to add a qualifier—religious. It is religious conservatives that don't like it. I think most of us [C]conservatives are just fine with Roe V Wade.
GAI agree with you, yet I think there needs to be a little more to it. I think it should be Evangelical Christians after a peek here and there as there are many religious people that do not oppose it. Peek at the first chart at the following for all religions. It is also inclusive of atheist and agnostics.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … -abortion/
Edit: And, a peek again I discovered "Study of American Evangelicals estimates that about 30 to 35 percent (90 to 100 million people) of the US population is evangelical."So yeah, per your [Edit], "religious" appears to cover the thought.
GA
I will allow that many Conservatives are fine with R v W, but I seriously doubt it is a majority, or even a large minority.
You are probably right; I would guess that the majority consider themselves Christian and that is where their objection stems from. The murder of children being sinful.
Of course, that would also mean that a goodly number of liberals are against abortion as well...Hmmm, let's see if you are right.
55% of Catholics think a woman should have the right to choose.
63% of White, not evangelical think a woman should have the right to choose.
Well, it is not those large segments of Christians who oppose the right to choose.
Oh, I found it - only 21% of White (conservative) evangelicals support a woman's right to choose.
I guess you guessed wrong.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … ost-cases/
Well, it looks like the religious conservatives are running the Republican Party when one looks at the legislation that they are behind in several states.
It appears that conservatives, their ideals and values are represented by the Republican Party
But, I forget, you are non-aligned?Yes, I am "non-aligned," but I hear there is a pill I can take for that.
However, with your lower-case-c conservative you got it right. I think Republican conservatives are driven by their religious views.
GA
Go back and read some of the earlier posts: because they find it to be murder. There is a pretty good reason to change a law that permits unlimited murder of helpless people.
I don't care what religious conservatives think, except that they should mind their own business.
It is ridiculous to think that you can control a woman's womb, basically saying that the fertilized zygote is a living child. Does the Rightwinger think that constraining women and their prerogatives to this point is going to have any traction?
Roe vs Wade is not unlimited murder of helpless people. I am reminded of an old idiom, COYOTE ( call off your old tired ethics). Religious conservatives want to control everybody and everything and the rest of us will make them pay for it.Credence, we have been over this before and I am on your side. I merely explain where the pro-lifers are coming from, for without examining, understanding and acknowledging their position nothing will ever change. Merely saying you don't care what they think will never lead to settling the issue. That's a major issue with almost everything we do today, and is the most basic reason for the great division our country is seeing. No one cares what anyone else thinks, for they are right and have all the answers themselves. No other opinions need be even acknowledged, let alone discussed and a compromise found.
" I merely explain where the pro-lifers are coming from, ..." - As I pointed out before, the way you do that makes one think you agree with them. There is rarely anything in your comments to indicate otherwise unless forced, like now.
You might try something like "Even though they are wrong, the pro-lifers think abortion is murder". Now we know where you stand and where you think they stand. See, no confusion.
The world would such a better place if conservatives like evangelicals, fundamentalists, Sharia Muslims, Trump Republicans, dictators like Orban, Putin, and Xi kept to themselves.
Maybe you would like to put all of the above in a concentration camp? Check yourself, that statement is pretty hateful. Shocking but expected.
Funny you added Xi Jinping to the list because your statement in many respects correlates with his views.Nope, just asking them to stop hurting other people. Is that TOO MUCH to ask?
This is just ONE of the ways Trump Republicans want to take the vote AWAY FROM THE VOTERS:
"Under [AZ State Rep Fillmore's] proposal, lawmakers would meet to either 'accept or reject election results' following primary and general elections. If legislators reject the results, any qualified voter 'may file an action in the Superior Court to request that a new election be held,' according to the bill. Fillmore said lawmakers should possess authority as 'representatives of the people' to review the vote count." Fifteen other AZ state Trump Republicans joined Fillmore in the absolutely unAmerican, anti-democratic law worthy of any third-world dictatorship.
This so scary to thinking Americans.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/28/politics … index.htmlIs this another typical Trump voter taken off the streets?
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/28/politics/ … index.htmlHere we go again.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1487616 … aZT0iD9y-w
And just to incite them he says:
"In reality, they're not after me, they're after you, and I just happen to be the person in the way,"
And Voltaire once said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” He was right."Another thing we'll do — and so many people have been asking me about it — if I run and if I win, we will treat those people from January 6 fairly. We will treat them fairly,” he said at a rally in Conroe, Texas. “And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons. Because they are being treated so unfairly.” - DT
SMHI see the dangerously, mentally ill, deranged, disgraced, one-term, twice impeached mob boss that several on this site want to see as their president again is at it again.
Pardon the insurrectionists!
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/30/politics/ … index.htmlI think this was quite possibly one of the most incendiary, dangerous speeches in U.S. history. Promising pardons for convicted Jan 6 criminals and all but declaring a racially charged civil war if he is indicted.
This was not a political speech, Mr. Trump was not a politician speaking to the public. He is speaking clearly as the leader of a politics-adjacent cult.
These rallies are reigniting and rebuilding his cult-like movement in America, with all the personal grievance and appeals to Brownshirt-style tactics ("In reality, they're not after me, they're after you, and I just happen to be the person in the way,")
He is telling us in no uncertain terms how he plans to break the nation this time. The foundation to his next coup is being built right in front of us.
We have Republicans driving out or stripping power from election officials who refused to go along with the 2020 fraud plot & replacing them with disciples of the big lie. Some of them have rewritten state statutes to seize partisan control of decisions about which ballots to count and which to discard, which results to certify and which to reject.
And then we have Mr. Trump using his megaphone to tell his followers that our nation and it's elections are "corrupt"
At this point, I'm very concerned that anything can be done to stop the chaos he seeks to unleash on this country."If I run and if I win, we will treat those people from January 6 fairly. We will treat them fairly," Trump said. "And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons. Because they are being treated so unfairly."
Not sure of what he meant -- His following statement indicated the prisons are committing atrocities against those convicted of crimes committed on Jan 6th? That they are being treated poorly. Was this the context of why he felt some may need pardoning?That was HIS context - if you believe a serial liar.
Why do you keep excusing this insane dictator-wannabe with statements like "Not sure of what he meant". How can you NOT know? It is clear even to full-fledged Trump apologists like Lindsey "how can I flip-flop today" Graham.
Is Trump planning more violence if he is held accountable for his actions? It seems so. (Remember how is last "demonstration" turned out?
His pledge at a Texas rally Saturday was accompanied by a call for demonstrations if prosecutors in New York, who are probing Trump's business practices, and those in Georgia, looking into his attempts to reverse his election loss in the state, do anything that he defined as wrong or illegal.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/01/31/politics/ … index.html
(Thanks Valeant for pointing out the Post a Reply button, it makes things much easier)SMH
What was that about whining and victim mentality?
Yup. What Ive been saying for a long time. The rising violence and extreme rhetoric, fringe groups etc. is because (many) white people fear they will be no longer in charge.Yes, of course. The rioting at BLM "protests", the destruction of historical statues, the attacks against police - these are all because white people fear they won't be in charge.
But you also failed to mention that the very large majority of the rioting and violence we have seen recently is directly from the black side of the fence. There has actually been very little seen from the idiots from the white supremacy fringe, but you insinuated that they are the primary source of violence. They aren't.
Why? Is the FBI involved in the Portland riots? Those in Minnesota? The CHAZ takeover in Seattle? Are they investigating any of the riots outside of the one Washington DC, where the VIP's got their toes stepped on and were the ones threatened rather than the mom and pop store in Portland?
Because it's common knowledge that homegrown domestic terrorism cases are way up since Trump's election.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-dou … d=80145125Yes they are...as long as you classify a desire for a legal, fraud free election to be "domestic terrorism". Personally I would have put the Portland riots (trying to burn down federal buildings), the CHAZ takeover (where no government representation, even ambulances, were allowed on that portion of American soil) and the efforts to reduce law enforcement as "terrorism" far more "terrorism" than an attempt to stifle a fraudulent election. Certainly the indiscriminate killing of police that we are seeing is, and it isn't coming from the far right radicals.
You link comments that "This ideologically motivated violence — domestic terrorism — underscores the symbolic nature of the National Capital Region and the willingness of some Domestic Violent Extremists to travel to events in this area and violently engage law enforcement and their perceived adversaries."
But aren't all protests "ideologically motivated"? Wasn't all the summer violence "ideologically motivated"? The only difference I can see is that it was the VIP's with the power that felt threatened and have responded accordingly, with resources that the mom and pop store in Portland doesn't have."Yes they are...as long as you classify a desire for a legal, fraud free election to be "domestic terrorism". Personally I would have put the Portland riots (trying to burn down federal buildings), the CHAZ takeover (where no government representation, even ambulances, were allowed on that portion of American soil) and the efforts to reduce law enforcement as "terrorism" far more "terrorism" than an attempt to stifle a fraudulent election. Certainly, the indiscriminate killing of police that we are seeing is, and it isn't coming from the far right radicals".
I agree, and add to it the hideous crime we are seeing in mainly liberal cities in America. I find ongoing daily violent crime far in these cities far more terrifying than an election protest that got out of hand."I find ongoing daily violent crime far in these cities far more terrifying than an election protest that got out of hand."
Far worse is that we allow it to the point of encouragement. We refuse to allow police to respond, we refuse to use the National Guard, we refuse to do anything to halt the carnage. Except at the Capital building where the rich and powerful were - at that point it is labeled terrorism and the full weight of the US government is thrown against the perpetrators.
Pretty obvious who counts in this world and who is just a pawn to be used and cast aside.""I find ongoing daily violent crime far in these cities far more terrifying than an election protest that got out of hand."" - And here we go again whitewashing an American insurrection. No wonder American democracy is in so much danger
If there were an actual insurrection I would agree. But of course there wasn't, any more than burning federal buildings, taking over police stations or portions of a city was; the terminology was never but a way to blame Trump for something evil.
So now you think the charges of insurrection (seditious conspiracy) the feds have brought so far are frivolous. I see. That is called whitewashing and supporting the anti-democratic forces of the Trump Republicans.
Holy cow! Are you in an alternate reality.
A desire for a legal, fraud free election was not what happened. An attack on government at the exact moment that there was to be a transfer of power from one administration to another was what happened.
An attempt to stifle a fraudulent election? What fraud? There was very little and no more than any other election. So once you understand that, this was an attempted insurrection to prevent a duly elected President from taking office.
That was a truly pathetic attempt to whitewash January 6 and the lies that built up to it. The difference here is that both parties agree those who rioted in the summer should be held to account. The leader of Republican Party wants to pardon those who attacked our Capitol on his behalf.
The party of law and order. Give us a break.At the exact moment of transfer. How short your memory is; the riot took place before votes were counted, meaning there was no transfer yet and could not be. Whether they were right or wrong, you know as well as I do that they were there to stop election fraud. And yet, somehow, they were there to overthrow the government, using a fire extinguisher and a flagpole. Right!
Want to bet that the majority of those Capital rioters would now agree there was only normal amounts of fraud, at least if we discount the changes to voting rules by people that were not authorized to do it? But of course it was their mindset at the time that counted, not what it is today after much discussion and recounts. Or do you disagree, and feel that they should have checked their crystal ball to know the future before taking steps to stop an illegal election?
I agree that rioters should be held to account. All of them, whether at the Capital, Portland, Minneapolis, Seattle or anywhere else. But, of course, precious few of them ever will be...except for those that put a fear into powerful politicians that then used it as a weapon against a political opponent.There you go deflecting again by playing games with semantics.
"overthrow the government, using a fire extinguisher and a flagpole. Right!" - And all David used to slay Goliath was a stone. Why do you keep whitewashing the insurrection? There were dozens of guns there that we know of now, not that it matters. If it were left to me, I would charge any person who used a flag pole, especially if it had an American flag on it, fire extinguisher, bear spray, bike racks, stolen tasers, stolen shields, stolen batons, etc with attempted murder.
"Want to bet that the majority of those Capital rioters would now agree there was only normal amounts of fraud, " - [i]No, I don't, not based on the reporting I have seen and the fact that so many of these people belong to the Trump cult
" at least if we discount the changes to voting rules by people that were not authorized to do it? " - So now you are declaring that all of those judges whose rulings disagree with your belief are frauds themselves, even the Trump judges who told Trump to take a hike with his false claims
"All of them, whether at the Capital, Portland, Minneapolis, Seattle or anywhere else. " - And they were. Remember, there weren't that many of them in total (and some were on your side as well)Your argument and belief in it is why I am a single issue voter. The attack happened right after the process to certify electoral votes began. Yes, the moment when the usual peaceful transfer of power takes place. The President, despite plans by organizers to remain at the Ellipse on January 6, unilaterally told his followers to march on the Capitol. He used the word peaceful once early in his speech and then followed that up with dozens of words intimating that he wanted his followers to 'Stop the Steal.'
'Whether they were right or wrong, you know as well as I do that they were there to stop election fraud.'
They were wrong and chose to ignore all the rulings and experts about claims of election fraud. And yes, when a mob of people that police are unable to stop, and those in positions of leadership refuse to send in additional support, use violence to invade the Capitol in the search to hang the current Vice President to halt him from certifying the duly elected President, that is an attempt to overthrow the government.
And I could care less what the majority of brainwashed Capitol rioters thought about fraud at the time. They chose to ignore the facts and believe their cult leader. Trump developed the lie about election fraud, helped organize people to be there on January 6, whipped them into a frenzy based on that lie, and then on his own, directed them to the Capitol.
How about talking about the criminal stupidity of attacking one of the most important buildings in our country, maskless, that is covered with surveillance cameras, during the day, with huge amounts of national television coverage around since it's a major national event as to why it is just easier to hold people to account.Ah. The transfer happened right after counting the votes began. Is that how all liberals think - we only need to count a half dozen votes to declare a Democrat winner and transfer the Presidency?
Yes, they were wrong. But they didn't "choose" to ignore all the rulings and experts about claims of election fraud" because there weren't any. No court cases, only liberal "experts" that contradicted Trump's "experts".
I understand you don't care what anyone but you thinks. You don't care about motive because you will assign one that suits your agenda whether it is true or not. You're not alone; it is common practice in the country today; "I have all the answers and don't need to listen to anyone else. I have no need to understand their complaint, and I don't care what they have to say". And the country divides further.Again, you are haggling over words to distract from what happened. The attack happened at the moment the process was taking place. Change the word to moments and focus on the big picture.
I've posted many court decisions where the claims of fraud were ruled on, even some by Trump-appointed judges. Thank you for proving my point that cult members like yourself continue to ignore all of them, even when spoon-fed.
I understand that you only care about what Trump thinks. You're not alone; it is common practice in the Republican Party today. Trump has all your answers and you don't need to listen to anyone else. You have no need to understand the court rulings, the opinion of election experts, the Republican Attorney General or the Republican FBI Director. And you divide yourself from reality and the country further.You're right - it happened during the voting/counting process. So why did you change it to "transfer of power" rather than "counting ballots"? That's a pretty massive change, a change that is weeks off from the actual event.
You have posted not a single court decision where Trump's claims were ruled on, because there were none. Again with the false information.
You may declare that I believe whatever Trump says, but it is just another false statement, just as is the statement that I don't listen to others. I listened to you...and found your statement false to fact, rooted in bias and hatred rather than reality.Uh, because the certification of electoral votes is the final step in an election and why it's referred to as the transfer of power from one administration to another.
I posted at least three different court cases with an easy search of judges rebuking the affidavits provided by the Trump campaign. Not process rulings, but actual evaluation of the 'evidence' which wasn't actually evidence of anything.
And the way you deny those court rulings is exactly the narrative you've been fed by Trump. My information is rooted in fact because those court decisions exist and the judges are quoted as having evaluated the actual evidence. Your accusations of my motives is just your latest display of ignorance.
And if you're this far removed from reality, you're a waste to engage.My bad: I thought the "transfer of power" of the Presidency took place at the inauguration. The swearing in must not be necessary; just a dog and pony show long after the new president sits in the White House and begins to run the country.
Ah. The judges "rebuked the affidavits provided by Trump. And there I thought a court ruling required a trial, not just a decision not to go to trial. My bad.
You're right - it is a waste to discuss with you for you can't keep your facts straight and "interpret" everything according to your bias. You have a great new year!I bet you also thought that preventing a step on the way to the inauguration wouldn't stop the transfer of power. That we could just have an incomplete election without certified electors and Trump would just say, "go ahead, Biden, it's all yours.'
Are you saying judges have never looked at evidence to determine if there was anything substantial to determine if a trial was warranted? That must be the case in that alternate reality you live in. Back here on planet Earth, it happens frequently.
And my facts are just fine, it appears to be you bouncing all over the place with distractions and ignorance of court rulings to try and make false claims that somehow a domestic terror attack on our Capitol was justified.
He is playing with you Valeant by appearing stupid. He does it so often, most of us actually believe it now.
A few court decision regarding Mr. Trump's fraud claims:
On Nov 27, 2020 a federal appeals court rejected a Trump campaign proposal to block Biden from being declared the winner of Pennsylvania. At the time, Stephanos Bibas, on behalf of the three-judge panel wrote: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so." It added: “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Biden's victory in the state, upholding a lower court's finding that there was no misconduct, fraud or illegal voting in the general election. Over a day and a half of testimony and oral arguments, her team failed to prove anything beyond a handful of garden variety mistakes, Superior Court Judge Randall Warner said.
The Nevada Supreme Court also rejected Mr. Trump's appeal to overturn the state's election results. A district court in Nevada ruled that the Trump campaign had not proven claims of malfunctions in voting devices and that the election had been manipulated.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann — a Republican and Federalist Society member in central Pennsylvania — compared the campaign’s legal arguments to “Frankenstein’s Monster,” concluding that Trump’s team offered only “speculative accusations,” not proof of rampant corruption.
State and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President Donald Trump and his allies challenging the election results. Many were largely dismissed by judges due to a lack of evidence. “The Republicans did not provide evidence to back up their assertions — just speculation, rumors or hearsay.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact … SKBN2AF1G1Faye so glad you posted, I wanted to get back to you in regard to Trump's Texas rally. I have been traveling and finally has a chance to listen to Trump's rally in Texas. You were concerned about his statement on pardoning people he felt were treated badly that participate in the Jan 6th riot.
Well, I must say I found something a bit more concerning. This statement in my view was classic Trump, and this one does concern me...
Said Trump: “If these radical, vicious racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had ... in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta, and elsewhere because our country and our elections are corrupt.”
Now, this is something to be concerned about in my view. He pulled out all the plugs...Oh I agree 100% on this. It was the most inflammatory section of the rally. I feel like his dangling of pardons is getting all the press but Mr. Trump's agitating a potential race war is seeming to fly under the radar a bit. I used to think the chatter about civil war or race wars was overblown and incomprehensible But that speech has me pondering if it could actually be a possibility. Safe travels to you!
BTW, one of the defense attorneys said his "pardon" statements will definitely approach how he counsels his clients now that he knows this is on the table. Trump just set himself up for yet another criminal obstruction of justice charge (tampering with witnesses).
I suspect that if Trump ever does go to jail, where he belongs, his cult of followers will turn very violent and require military intervention as I don't think the police will be able to handle this new insurrection.That event of having Trump placed behind bars will be the spark where the true nature of Trump supporters will reveal themselves. It may well make January 6, 2021 look like a folk dance in comparison. Your point is well taken, I believe that we need to be very concerned
I live in a sea of Trump Red here and I am thinking seriously about arming myself and my wife. I never thought I would need a gun after giving them up when I left the Army, but Trump is changing my thinking.
Trump Republicans are proving themselves to be very dangerous people given they aren't able to think independently.Brandishing weapons has not been my forte in life, as I find that having them around causes more problems then they solve.
But, I will be watching, when the time comes when if I can't get a cup of sugar from my neighbors....
I am being deliberately myopic in the hope that the outside world stays away from our bucolic neighborhood
Yes, when I listened to the rally it gave me a sinking feeling. I can't believe that inflammatory remark was not picked up by the media to any real extent. This last rally was much like the Jan 6th rally.
This kind of rhetoric is very dangerous. In all reality, it should work against him.Actually, I learned about it from several reports (vice opinions) by CNN. That said, I saw more "reporting" about the pardons, mainly because they were reporting about what Trump was saying on Fox news.
I saw little report about Trump's statement --- “If these radical, vicious racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had ... in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta, and elsewhere because our country and our elections are corrupt.”
I preferred to listen to the rally speech on youtube it offered full content of what was said.
Actually, I had a look around today, and it looks like Fox and the Hill were quick to cover that quote. I like fox online, they seem to report all news, not selected stories.
This is what we have been trying to tell you about Trump for five years now. He is a Clear and Present Danger to American democracy. He was when he took office and he is even more so now.
Yes he did. (He also tripled own on the pardon thing and called Lindsey Graham a RINO)
The last protest he tried to hold ended in a violent insurrection. So it's no wonder the Atlanta DA took this statement as a threat and asked the FBI for help. Combined with talking about pardons for those on January 6 and the inference is that if you do violence in the three cities should I be prosecuted, if elected, I will pardon you.
Faye - Wilderness does not care about those things - they are Fake News to his ears and eyes.
You forgot, Valeant, Wilderness has frequently shown no desire to be exposed to the TRUTH.
Once again you offer meaningless words by deflecting to rhetorical arguments.
And the rest of your comment only emphasizes your lack of exposure to real reporting since saying things like "... because there weren't any ... " is demonstrably false.
When you start telling the TRUTH, more people will take you seriously.
Well, let's see - the Capitol is in Washington D.C. (and in the FBI's jurisdiction) and not in Seattle or Minnesota or Portland (who are not in the FBI's jurisdiction), is it? You are aware that the local and state police and attorney generals investigated and prosecuted those few people involved in the actual riots aren't you?
Yeah. I'm aware. And they got their wrists slapped. Compare their sentence to rioting at the capital.
What I saw was peaceful protestors during the summer protests getting there butts beat down by cops and some killed.
While watching the Capitol insurrection, I mentioned to my wife how noticeable the tolerance of the Capitol police were to the White rioters. I told her that if those had been black insurrectionists, there would tons of bodies laying around the streets. Hell, I don't think they even arrested any of those white good ol' boys beating them with Confederate flags at the time. You know that would not have been the case if they had not been white.
It is more than that, that crowd of rabble was there to protest voter fraud which had by that time not be proven. So why would this ragtag bunch choose to gather?
I say that that particular confrontation was tied to the highest levels of government involvement. Senators and Representatives, coordinated attacks on the True electors to the electoral college with fake electors. Only the most daft could conclude that Trump was not involved.
I did not see these kinds of sinister connections in Seattle or Portland."It is more than that, that crowd of rabble was there to protest voter fraud which had by that time not be proven. So why would this ragtag bunch choose to gather?"
You answered your own question as well as I could.
You say that, but you do so with exactly zero proof, something I refuse to do.Wilderness, come on, you rarely offer any proof of anything.
As to Credence saying that - he has his eyes open and can see what happened while your are shut to reality.
And YOU forgot to mention that the Blacks were responding to being murdered by racists White cops. I guess you think they should just shut up and stop complaining.
Tell me, why does the DOJ/FBI consider this white supremacy fringe to be one of the greatest threats to American democracy today (besides Trump)
I have shared with you many studies previously that the right-wing in America is behind a majority of the violence. You want me to pull them out again?"And YOU forgot to mention that the Blacks were responding to being murdered by racists White cops."
If that were true then they certainly need to look around them, for the number of blacks murdered by "racist White cops" is truly minute compared to the number murdered by black people, cops or not.What does the relative magnitude have to do with anything other than trying to excuse the cops actions?
You discount information from the FBI in favor of your intuition as the oracle of wisdom that transcends the true professionals with objective information. I shouldn't be surprised, you do it all of the time.
The riots on the west coast was in response to the George Floyd murder, but Blacks as individuals did not compose the vast number of rioters. So, it is not the "black side of the fence".
The behavior of the rioters on January 6th was all about white supremacy, their racial slurs against black police officers, the dearth of minorities in the crowd and the disgusting racist conderate banners, and white supremist monikers and symbols.
As to the source of violence, excuse me if I give more credibility to the FBI than to your opinion.I'm sorry, but if BLM had not instigated the "peaceful protests" (sarcastically) there would have been no riots. It is therefore on their shoulders.
Oh ok. So you changed your mind, right? So the Jan 6 is on Trump shoulders, right? Since he instigated the "peaceful protest". Got it.
"If people wouldn't drive, there would be no automobile accidents."
Wilderness is an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There is rarely a middle ground for him from what I can discern.
You know what absolutely baffles me Island, is that so many (meaning not all) Conservatives simply are not capable of comprehending the difference between protests (sometimes marred by riots) done in the name of social justice and protecting one's life AND an insurrection to stop the functioning of government based on WHAT? A LIE.
This lack of comprehension leads them to repeatedly make false equivalencies between the Summer protests and the Capitol insurrection. That they keep trying to justify tearing down the fabric of American democracy with protests over REAL grievances about the way the minorities are treated in this country.And what baffles me is the inability to understand that allowing rioting to go on without consequences promotes more of the same. Whether you falsely term one an insurrection or not, it remains a fact. Allowing people to violate the law at will only encourages more of the same.
"... allowing rioting to go on without consequences promotes more of the same. ... " - If that were actually true, I would agree - but it is not
No, it is fear by Black people that White people (especially racists cops) will kill them.
They aren't smart enough to understand that far more blacks are killed by blacks than by whites? I have trouble thinking that you actually believe that.
Again, you seem to side step the point. More blacks kill blacks than whites, that is true. More whites kill whites than blacks, that is also true.
But what is being protested is cops kill disproportionately higher percentages of blacks than whites and blacks are understandably pissed about that.
(I think Credence will point out to you the obvious - writing They (Blacks) aren't smart enough to understand that far more blacks are killed by blacks than by whites? makes me think you are, whether you are consciously aware of it or not, exposing racist attitudes. That is something Trump would say.)Well, Wilderness, looks like your "slip" is showing this time........
You forgot to include the rest of the question (and it was a question), changing the context considerably. Here, I'll provide it for you:
" I have trouble thinking that you actually believe that."
If you have trouble understanding, the intent is to question your apparent belief that blacks aren't smart enough to understand that more blacks are killed by blacks than by whites. Not my belief; yours, for that seems to be what you are saying.Sorry, your save doesn't work. The second sentence does not change the meaning of the first. All it says is "you have trouble thinking I would agree with you - which I don't"
I don't expect police to bring their biases to the job and to compare wrong doing from law enforcement with general homicide issues, is irrelevant to the extreme.
And don't you worry, I am smart enough.....I didn't ask if you were; I assume you are.
If you expect perfection from some 300,000 cops you will always be disappointed. There WILL be some that are biased and there WILL be some that exhibit that bias.
But we can and should always strive for perfection, even if we will never get it. But being just shy of perfection (how many cops were convicted last year of murdering because of racial prejudice?) is not a reason to riot even once, let alone a summer's worth.
It's hard understand how people with such a tight grip on power in America could be so insecure about it.
Just some thoughts on the issue.
I believe that some white people are tired of feeling like they’re racist. They talk about being blamed for crimes they didn’t commit and that sense of being unjustly blamed for racism is part of why they feel discriminated against. Like, they’re discriminated against because they’re wrongly assumed to be discriminators.
But they’re saying they too are discriminated against. Many believe in reverse racism.
Not that racism against black people is over. The belief that black people have some problems, but also "I do, too, or my race does, too.” Some white people have come to see race as a sort of card that only some people get to use and they resent that.
Others can play the race card, play the gender card. So they’re like, I want a card. I want to be part of this as well. I want to be a protected class as well. There’s power in feeling like a victim. I think the white working class has embraced that sense of victimization.
If you’re a blue-collar worker from rural Arkansas and your plant has shut down, your community is in decline, your family is dysfunctional and you can’t support your family, and you hear all this talk about white privilege you’re likely to react saying wait, I’m white, I’m not privileged, what about my problems?
There's a mindset that whites are somehow losing out to people of color. If minorities get their fair share of the pie, mine may be cut into.
The rise of Black Lives Matter has also made some feel discriminated against. The movement is anxiety producing for some people. If you’re saying Black lives matters, are you saying my life doesn’t matter? That's the takeaway for some whites.
There's also a cultural component. There is quite a bit of fear that white-male-centric American culture is being pushed aside or being replaced by a cultural environment that’s more inclusive. It’s NFL players kneeling, LGBTQ issues front and center, the cultural influences that immigrants bring and so on. It's a feeling of losing the America they know and have been comfortable with.
But also, There’s been a pretty intense marketing campaign directed at white America. Particularly the middle class or rural suburban middle class, that has been telling them that they are losing out and that a whole variety of people are responsible for them getting a smaller piece of the pie. After 50 or 60 years of being told that affirmative action and welfare and immigration are the reasons why they don’t have a good job with benefits anymore plus the fact that some of those conditions do exist, well, eventually that propaganda will be effective.
In my opinion, whites have always felt that we were being discriminated against every time there was evidence of black progress. Mr. Trump just seized and amplified this message of white victimhood.
Ultimately, whiteness and blackness are social constructs. They are political groups created to help rich white people maintain power by creating an underclass (black folks) that was, by definition, lesser than poor whites. Unfortunately it has become a deeply-ingrained instinct for many whites to feel threatened by any small bit of upward movement by black people in general.Your comment about "If minorities get their fair share of the pie, mine may be cut into." sums up the issue nicely - as a rule Conservatives feel that way while Liberals understand that minorities (including women, the majority-minority) deserve their share of the pie. Conservatives have and are resisting sharing any part of the pie they think rightfully belongs to them (at least that is what their actions show).
With whites folks, it is called the zero-sum game.
More news about the Trump Coup attempt.
CNN on Monday also reported new details of the depth of the conspiracy to steal President Joe Biden's election win. Multiple sources said that Trump aides drafted two versions of an executive order to seize voting machines intended for the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. While the orders were never issued, they flesh out the depravity of the plotting in the final days of Trump's White House that had more in common with a developing world tyrant's desperate bid to cling to power than the conduct expected of a US President.
https://us.cnn.com/2022/02/01/politics/ … index.html
Another true observation from this article:
There have been enough accounts of Trump's rages in the Oval Office to dampen surprise at the revelations that he tore up crucial documents. But the ex-President's contempt for history and accountability still underscore the lawless character of his administration.An outgrowth of Trump's coup attempt - Trump Republican candidate tells supporters to show up at the voting booth armed if "if we can't change the tide."
https://us.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022 … ay-vpx.cnnKuddos to LTC Vindman for trying to bring bad characters to justice, even if it is a civil trial. Maybe criminal obstruction of justice charges can flow from it.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics … index.htmlIt is becoming clearer with each passing day, that this Trump guy is stupid, shallow, vicious and vindictive. Look at all the inane assumptions he made at the rally...
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/01/10771668 … nt-rallies
So, what kinds of people are really motivated by this example of leadership? This is not just an aberration but a mainstream phenomenon representing a major political party.
We all need to watch our cabooses regarding this Trump fellow and his followers.I disagree with the "stupid" part. He follows in the footsteps of his very smart mentors - Hitler, Putin, Stalin, Xi, and the list goes on.
I think that while he may have the form of these historical tyrants you mention, he has none of the substance. What startles me is the great mass of people that live in racial resentment, that you would think would know better. His adherents say, "no its not that". He supposedly rises above the fray and is apolitical. Really? For these 77 millions that supported him, is authoritarianism so attractive? Never during the terms of the previous 43 presidents had we ever had one that has had as much trouble with the law.
It not that Trump is so smart, but more like wide swaths of Americans have proven to be so base and uninformed in their thinking. This is where I am disappointed.
I thought in the beginning that the man was just a buffoon that no one took seriously and that his ardent followers were just so much refuse. Yet, Resentment seems to trump democratic governance, that's the new normal."he has none of the substance." - I can agree with that. Trump is a lightweight, failing to look like successful dictators that he so desperately wants to mimic.
Shame on you, lol, you give his base credit for being able to "think". They demonstrate hourly that they are not capable of critical thinking.
Seems to me like racisms is alive and well in America which Trump uses to further inflame his base. (I wonder how many of them want to bring back slavery and will Trump help?)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/03/us/hbcu- … index.htmlGlory be, there are still a couple Republicans who have a lick of sense in the age of the Trump coup and Republican voter suppression. This Arizona Speaker effectively tabled the most draconian voter bill yet to come out of the Big Lie!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/03/politics … index.htmlThe bill has been drowned like a baby in the bath water. This was to be the GOP idea of "integrity of the vote". The Republicans are turning out to be the fascist party, all should beware as Georgia and Texas have been playing with the ideas that failed in Arizona.
Thanks for the good news and the link.
IT IS OFFICIAL - The Republican Party is in bed with the Jan 6th Insurrectionists calling the attack on our Democracy "legitimate political discourse"!!!!
Three things should happen now:
1. Real Republicans should resign immediately from the traitorous Trump Republican Party and form a new party that actually believes in the United States of America
2. States should start decertifying the Republican Party as a legitimate political party since it is ACTIVELY working against the American democracy and Constitution.
3. The Republican Party should be relegated to the same status as the American Communist Party, the American Socialist Party, and the American Fascist Party.
THIS is today's Republican Party
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt_dYiOmwUw
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/politics … index.htmlToday is full of news. WOW!! former Vice President Pence seriously broke with Trump and the Republican Party (although I am sure he doesn't see it that way) by declaring that TRUMP WAS WRONG in saying that Pence could have thrown the election to Trump. Adding insult to injury, Pence effectively said Trump was unAmerican (which we all know to be true) in saying that he could.
BOOM!!! Boy, is he in trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC doesn't censure him like they just did Cheney and Kinzinger.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/politics … index.htmlThe RNC just went full Big Lie, that's for sure. They are really going to test who in their party wants to rewrite history and live in whatever reality Trump paints for them. People like Ronna McDaniel are clearly comfortable living in those lies, that's for sure.
In other news, Capitol rioter wants to subpoena Trump and likely Giuliani to prove they directed him to attack the Capitol. We see if the courts compel testimony.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/capitol-riot … 27060.htmlI wonder what he thinks he can prove. Does he have a taped phone call telling him to attack? An email? A text message that he has now deleted? But none of those would require testimony.
Maybe he thinks Trump will admit to a private meeting 6 months prior, planning and directing him to attack the Capital with a fire extinguisher.Have you ever heard of something so ridiculous --- IT's like the devil made me do it defense... I mean I can't believe anyone would think this would or will fly in a court of law.
Who organized a rally to bring them to DC?
What lies were used to enrage them? (In your analogy, whose voice was in their head)
Who used the lies to enrage them?
Who were they made to feel that anger towards?
Who then sent them to the Capitol, despite no plans for that, once they were enraged?
These are pretty easy questions to answer.
Three people plan to rob a bank. One goes in a robs it, one drives the car, one just planned it. Who is guilty?
Trump wanted the certification stopped. Trump organized the rally, incited his followers, and then sent them to the Capitol (all his plan). Once the attack started, he did nothing for hours except note that his followers were fighting for him and allowing the crime to take place. An hour and a half after the attack had already begun and insurrectionists had breached the Capitol, he tweeted to his followers that Pence 'did not have the courage to do what should have been done.'
There is certainly a case that Trump is an accomplice of these crimes as one who organized, incited, and continue to encourage the attack for at least an hour and a half after it had begun.Who told them to march peacefully and talk to their representatives?
Using loaded words to change the meaning of Trump's speech does not change what he actually said and certainly does not change who was responsible for the riot."Who told them to march peacefully and talk to their representatives?" - Who told them to march to the Capitol and FIGHT to save Trump and stop the certification? Which is what a 1,000 of them did, violently injuring 150+ Capitol police officers and leading to the death of three or four of them (as well as the death of a few of their own).
"Who told them to march to the Capitol and FIGHT to save Trump and stop the certification? "
Time for you to offer this quote in that context. You are offering misinformation or information that you yourself have made up to suit your narrative. Or perhaps heard as a dog whistle.
You need to put up a solid full quote on this one. "Who told them to march to the Capitol and FIGHT to save Trump and stop the certification? " CONTEXT MATTERS. HERE IS TRUMP"S SPEECH IN FULL. I want you to quote in the full context where Trump ordered anyone to physically fight at the capitol. IT would seem you are hearing words that you have bent into what you want them to mean. The word fight is frequently used when giving a speech to promote a campaign determinedly for or against something, especially to put right what was once considered unfair or unjust. This is the context in which Trump used the word "fight" in his speech. His context was clear each time he used the word. The word fight is used frequently by politicians in campaign speeches.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/08/poli … index.html
Defenation of fight --- https://www.google.com/search?q=fight&a … ceid=chrom
CNN has conditioned you to pick up dog whistles, and you would think you would take a hint from the many viewers that have abandoned them due to this kind of media reporting."You need to put up a solid full quote on this one. "" - We have many times, you just ignore them, so why bother again.
It is also very clear you have no concept of what "incitement" is. Otherwise, you wouldn't be wordsmithing so badly.
What "dog whistles" I don't see CNN saying anything about dog whistles? Can you provide the exact quote where CNN is talking about dog whistles?
Why has Fox News lost a higher percentage (and raw numbers) of viewers than MSNBC? Why have all of those viewers abandoned Fox? See how silly your game is?Weak excuse, your quote is misleading sort of like the fake news CNN puts out. I offered the complete transcript of the speech, which I unlike you have read in full, you seem to have picked up bits, half-sentences no before or after sentences. Put up or you know what.
You know what I think about CNN as it well appears by their ratings the majority of, Americans feel likewise.
"JANUARY 2022 VS. JANUARY 2021 NIELSEN NUMBERS (seven day week, L+SD):
TOTAL DAY
FNC: 1,414,000 total viewers – up 4% (226,000 in 25-54 – down 7%)
CNN: 493,000 total viewers – down 74% (101,000 in 25-54 – down 81%)
MSNBC: 656,000 total viewers – down 60% (74,000 in 25-54 – down 75%) https://press.foxnews.com/2022/02/fox-n … Channel%20(FNC)%20is,channel%20for%2020%20consecutive%20years.
Nothing like a good eye-opening chart -- CNN is all but gone...
https://www.ft.com/content/85241de6-981 … 18021d011aUnlike you, I have read the full transcript AND listened to the full speech AND listened to and watched peoples' reaction to his words and tone. Because you are incapable of accepting anything bad about Trump, you tune out the stuff (about 80% if his speech) that doesn't fit your narrative and only hear the one tenth of one percent that does fit your false interpretation.
It was an angry speech. It was a speech full of lies. It was a speech designed to incite violence. It was a speech that succeeded in bringing to a head the six months of preparation Trump put in to get an angry mob to the Capitol to stop the transfer of power.
It is a shame to watch you waste your obvious intellect in defense of a lie and a cult leader.
You are such a believer in opinion polls being the be-all and end-all of proof about a topic, why don't you point to the polls that show most Americans TRUST CNN/ABC/NBC/MSNBC more than they do your right-wing propaganda outlets.
Why did you ignore that MSNBC KEPT more of its viewership than FOX?? Was it too embarrassing to address?
And the fact remains that there is MORE VIEWERSHIP between the mainstream media sources as compared to your right-wing propaganda outlests.Here is the reality of the situation, and it isn't your cherry-picked numbers;
By viewership, the most watched channels are:
1. CBS
2. NBC
3. ABC
Each on is bigger than Fox, which is #4.
Also, Fox News lost 34% of its viewers in 2021, which is on par with CNN which lost 38% and worse than MSNBC which lost only 28%.
https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/networ … 235143630/I posted on Jan 6th, that I tuned the speech off due to it being a hyperbolic speech that I could not listen to in full. I in no way defended his attempts to negate the outcome of the election. I accepted the outcome of the; section immediately, and still do. When you can't admit you are wrong you just revert to another subject, and just say whatever you please. I did not support what is called "the big lie". I supported the outcome of the election.
Yes, I have on many occasions argued the context of what media have reported in regards to many of the statements Trump made. I find this kind of journalism dangerous. In my opinion, it is media that has caused a division in the country. And this is why you might find me making attempts to point out the context that I feel is being reported incorrectly.
What we were discussing.was one of the persons that were arrested hopes to use the defense that Trump provoked him to riot... We got in the weeds when I expressed that this type of defense would not stand up in a court of law, I shared it might hold up in a congressional investigation, but not in court. Somewhere along the line, CNN was entered into the conversation to boot!
Due to beating that dead horse, I moved on to the Bidens failing polls and the fact that the majority of American's feel he is doing a poor job as president.
And no there is not more viewership on any one of the news networks you mentioned than Fox alone. I would suppose if you added them together you may come up to the number of viewers Fox enjoys.I guess you didn't look at the source, did you. Otherwise, you wouldn't have said "And no there is not more viewership on any one of the news networks you mentioned than Fox alone." - The Chart clearly shows there were three, CBS, ABC, and NBC.
"In my opinion, it is media that has caused a division in the country. " - If you are talking about the Sean Hannity's and Tucker Carlson's of the world, I couldn't agree more. But the MSM reporting is only a reflection of what the real actors in the world are saying and doing. Are you saying reporting what people do is causing the division or what the people like Trump are doing is causing the division?
AS you see I have offered the Quotes on the only directives Trump offered in his speech n Jan 6th. He was very clear, and his context could not be mistaken for March to the Capitol and riot, steal, and beat cops... Oh, and hang Pence.
It is so shocking that some can read whatever they want to hear into his words. They see and hear whatever suits a narrative.
Here is the full Jan 6th speech. I suggest you find the words where Trump used
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/08/poli … index.html"AS you see I have offered the Quotes on the only directives Trump offered in his speech n Jan 6th. " - And of course that is a lie since those weren't the ONLY directives Trump issued that day and the days leading up to it.. SO NO, you HAVE NOT offered the ONLY DIRECTIVES Trump offered that day.
Not only did Trump direct them to Stop the Steal, his minions told the crowd to KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES and to have a TRIAL BY COMBAT! Words Trump did not dispute.Oh, I already know the words. Just as I know how hate and bias have ignored those words in favor of making up others in some kind of "secret code".
Perhaps those people, too, "hear voices" in their heads, telling how to decipher that code and learn what was really meant.
He used the word peacefully once in his speech compared to fight 20 times that. He told his followers to respect police long after they had already overrun them and breached the Capitol.
Ignoring the loaded words Trump used, as well as the lies he told prior to organizing January 6 does not exclude him from culpability.
If Trump had not lied about the election being stolen, would any of those people had even been there on January 6?The old legal adage of BUT FOR applies here. BUT FOR this happening, THEN THAT would not have happened.
In Trump's case, the BUT FOR is satisfied. BUT FOR Trump spending six months riling his violent supporters up using the Big Lie, THEN THOSE people would not have shown up.
BUT FOR Trump telling his violent supporters to show up and have a Wild Time (how do you do that peacefully?), THEN THOSE people would not have shown up.
BUT FOR Trump telling his violent mob to march on the Capitol, THEN MOST would have not.
BUT FOR Trump scaring the bejesus out of his supporters, THEN THEY would not have attacked.
The prosecution could probably spend two or three days just listing the BUT FORs to the jury. Then they can spend the next couple of weeks presenting the mountain of evidence they now or will have buttressing motive and, where needed, intent.
Of course you know all of this already and don't need to be told - it is just the other anti-democratic forces on this forum that need the education.
Can't believe you posted this. It would seem the media has you hearing voices. To convict there needs to be a crime. And within an hour he sent out two tweets trying to stop the violence, you are not willing to see that fact.
So again these facts need to be presented --- As they most likely will be in any courtroom where some fool claims Trump told them to riot. Pure evidence shows what Trump hoped his supporters would do. Not a hidden message, not a dog while. Evidence of his words.
If they would have done what Trump told them to do they would have --- "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,"
After the crowd had infiltrated the Capitol building, Trump took to his now-deleted personal Twitter account to address his supporters.
"I know your pain," Trump said. "I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now."
He also urged his supporters to be peaceful and maintain "law and order."
"Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement," he tweeted. "They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"There were crimes: Seditious conspiracy, inciting to riot, obstruction of an official proceeding to name just a few.
I won't bother anymore with your deflection that Trump responded. We all know he did. But what you refuse to recognize in your rapt defense of Trump is that it is a crime for him to wait so long and to act ONLY because OTHERS beseeched him to. Granted, if he had not been president at the time, it would not be a crime. But, he was president (unfortunately) and he had a DUTY to act, which he didn't until WAY TOO LATE.
""I know your pain," Trump said. "I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us." - Tell me, Sharlee, why are you posting Trump lying as a defense of his actions? Why didn't you call out for not saying comforting words like that the the POLICE HIS MOB were beating up? All that tells me is you are on the side of the insurrectionist while providing lip service to opposing the violence TRUMP instigated.
BTW, there is a reason the word INSTIGATED is in the English language, did you know that?As always, you ignore everything bad that was said and the inaction Trump did on that day. It's like you have blinders on.
You cannot even acknowledge that he didn't tweet to his followers to remain peaceful until 2:38pm, a full hour and a half after the attack began and long after they had breached the Capitol. He sat there reveling in the attack for a full hour and a half. And his call for peace was around ten minutes after he enraged his followers by telling them Pence didn't follow the coup plan.It would destroy her false narrative if she did.
NO, I actually have not ignored all that was said in his speech. However, we are discussing the subject of how a certain person is using the defense he broke the law due to Trump in some bazaar respect told him to riot, steal and become violent.
I previously posted the precise times that trump tweeted, and ultimately gave a statement on TV. These are facts I acknowledge and will wait to see other facts as they are released.
His speech was very hyperbolic, however, I did not see him order people to march, and become violent. And I do not in any respect feel his speech can be used in a court of law as evidence. I do think the basis Jan 6th committee will say whatever suits them in regard to his words were enough to incite a riot. That's a gimmie.
IT is clear some that read the speech see his words mean one thing, some feel his words mean something else... So how would one go about saying or proving what Trump intended to convey? His words in this case will never be used as evidence in a court of law. They were not direct enough to prove what the left want to prove. The contexts of the full speech should be what one considers, not the word --- Fight“It will be established at trial that Mr. Trump and his conspirators engaged in a concerted effort to deceive the public, including Defendant, into believing that American democracy was at stake if Congress was permitted to certify the election,” according to the court filing Friday on behalf of Ohio resident Dustin Thompson.
There's much truth in that statement from defendant's counsel.
As I watch the Olympics, every one of those athletes are fighting for gold. Many are fighting for their country or their team.
Not one intends violence; it is only you and your kind that change "fight" into something that can only mean violence.Some serious denial there because thousands of Trump supporters heard fight and took that as a call to violence on January 6. Not one is a stupid claim since so many clearly did. Just your latest statement of ridiculousness.
Yes, of course it is ridiculous...to some pushing an agenda based on inference, supposition and assumption and that refuses to look at reality.
If you think every person in the country is rational about politics you really need to rethink your position (of course that needs done anyway, but here is another strong reason to do so). And if you think those people that went nuts at the Capital, or any other big city riot during the year, you also need to rethink. If you believe that it is all right wing nuts indiscriminately killing cops today, you need to rethink - the instigation of hatred against our police force comes directly from the left. And yes, it is instigation - months of dialogue against any form of police will do that to people. A couple of hours of a political speech will not...unless they are already on the edge of irrationality anyway.Like I said, denialism. You note months of dialogue for one topic and can discount the months of lies Trump spewed about a stolen election before January 6.
Another one of these times that it's pointless to engage in conversation with you when you're this detached from reality and only trying to deflect from the thread topic.
Wilderness is just playing dangerous word games again, Valeant. Serious people, including the Supreme Court understand you have to look at the context violent words are used in to determine whether they are hyperbole or a call to action.
The rules the Courts have laid out are designed to determine whether one "fight" is encouragement and therefore permissible, or inciteful and therefore not permissible.
Wilderness will always argue that using words such as fight, kill, maim, wound, attack, etc are ALWAYS peaceful and protected by the First Amendment. Fortunately, the courts disagree with him.
IT is exactly that defense some of these people are using. What surprises me is that some here would think this defense would float in a court of law. "I heard a hidden message and acted on it"...
I mean we are not talking the Congress here...Must laugh"IT is exactly that defense some of these people are using. " - Actually, I think it is just ONE of the defendants claim this. So why MUST you exaggerate it by saying "some".
More credible, but probably unsuccessful as well, is what Valeant posted regarding a defendant's filing the other day:
[/i]“It will be established at trial that Mr. Trump and his conspirators engaged in a concerted effort to deceive the public, including Defendant, into believing that American democracy was at stake if Congress was permitted to certify the election,” according to the court filing Friday on behalf of Ohio resident Dustin Thompson.[/i]
This defendant made his own decision on that day to break the law. Whether Trump's words provoked him to do so, he is responsible for his own action. Or does this mean as a rule just do what's feels someone wants him to do? Would he jump off a building if he felt someone was provoking him to? He is clearly trying to make a defense for his own actions --- he broke the law, and he needs to be punished accordingly. I note the article did not mention what he was charged with.
"Thompson has been charged with a number of offenses in the storming of the Capitol, including obstruction of an official proceeding, theft of government property, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, and disorderly conduct in the Capitol."
Did Trump also tell him to commit theft? He needs a new attorney, this one sounds like an " Avenatti" trying for 15 minutes of fame. Is he not still under house confinement due to several other crimes?"This defendant made his own decision on that day to break the law." - [i]So, you are claiming ADVERTISIN'G is a waste of money because it doesn't work? That you have never bought a product you didn't want because of an ad you saw?
Are you claiming that propaganda does not work and that the Russians and Chinese are stupid and wasting their time and resources trying to influence American voters?
Are you suggesting that the everyone of the hundreds of defendants who claim they were there and doing what they were doing at the orders of Trump are lying through their teeth.
Maybe you are saying the Nuremburg Trials should never have happened because all of those German soldiers who actually committed the atrocities did it of their own free will and only THEY should have been prosecuted and not their leaders?
It seems to me that is a very naïve belief that not a single person in the world (I use Wilderness' tactic here) can be influenced to do something they would not otherwise do. For even if ONLY ONE is telling the truth, then your logic fails.
You certainly must be commended for your faithful defense of Trump against all the evidence to the contrary.If they would have done what Trump told them to do they would have --- "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,"
After the crowd had infiltrated the Capitol building, Trump took to his now-deleted personal Twitter account to address his supporters.
"I know your pain," Trump said. "I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now."
He also urged his supporters to be peaceful and maintain "law and order."
"Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement," he tweeted. "They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
My comment in no respect defended rump, only pointed out if someone breaks the law --- that's on them not anyone else. That is 100% how I look at this man's situation. He did the crime, and if he is intelligent enough to feel Trump was responsible, that's his problem.
And yes there are many simple-minded people in our society that have little brainpower. And yes people can be influenced by the words and actions of others, but ultimately one is responsible for their actions." they would have --- "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."" - It absolutely amazes me how myopic your perception is. For you to use ONLY those particular words (which are clearly cover my ass words) out of an hour speech designed to incite his audience to violence just shows how devoted you are to excusing a very bad man
"After the crowd had infiltrated the Capitol building, Trump took to his now-deleted personal Twitter account to address his supporters." - Another good example of how to twist reality by leaving out the facts that people BEGGED Trump to do that for OVER an hour!! Why would you do that except to fabricate a false narrative in the defense of Trump?
"I know your pain," Trump said. "I know you're hurt." - If he were staying that to the cops his militia was beating up would be one thing, but that was not the target of his sorrow. His target were his own insurrectionists, As Pence put it "how unAmerican is that?"
"My comment in no respect defended rump, only pointed out if someone breaks the law " - Apparently, you don't understand that by deflecting blame away from Trump, you are defending Trump.
Are you saying that no one is responsible for their actions? That everything you do is dictated by someone else, whether advertisement, suggestion or influence?
Can't speak for Sharlee, but no, I've never bought something I didn't want because of an Ad. Is that your typical purchase; whatever you see an ad for?
No, the logic is that (unless forced somehow) you are responsible for your actions. It may not be the liberal way, given the immense amount of victimology we see today, but it is true and factual. You are responsible, always - no one else.BS. You have know idea how advertising works behind the scenes. You wouldn't know if you didn't want it because Trump and advertising work behind your conscienceless. Everybody knows that. That is why Russian propaganda and the Right-wing media have worked so will with you.
BTW, how did you get off on the tangent that the insurrectionists weren't responsible of their actions? That makes no sense you would even think that.
What we are talking about is the motivation behind their actions. In this case, that is a very easy one to answer - BUT FOR TRUMP not one of them would have been there that day for the purpose of stopping the certification. Had Trump NOT fed your side the Big Lie, there would have been no Jan 6 insurrection. Trump WAS the instigator and needs to be held accountable for that.Sorry - you are the one that says the rioters aren't responsible for their own actions...because someone else made them angry. A premise that I don't accept.
A plea to march peacefully and talk is not instigating anything. Unless you believe that every protest with violence was "instigated" by the planners of the protest? Or is it only Trump that instigates a riot by planning a peaceful protest? That would be in line with your bias and hatred, but it is nothing that reflects reality."Sorry - you are the one that says the rioters aren't responsible for their own actions..." - Yet Again, you make things up. Please provide the quote where I said that and I will provide the many quotes where I said they are responsible
Clearly you do not know the meaning of "lip service".
"Or is it only Trump that instigates a riot by planning a peaceful protest?" - You keep getting it wrong. One, YES, it is only Trump and Two, he DID NOT plan a peaceful protest. If he did, he wouldn't have riled them up and told them to stop the certification.
Motive is not evidence... Words are evidence, documents are evidence, not some person claiming he felt Trump was ordering him to attack the Capitol.
It matters little what someone thinks they are hearing when the context of those words is clear...
If they would have done what Trump told them to do they would have --- "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,"
After the crowd had infiltrated the Capitol building, Trump took to his now-deleted personal Twitter account to address his supporters.
"I know your pain," Trump said. "I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now."
He also urged his supporters to be peaceful and maintain "law and order."
"Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement," he tweeted. "They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"Then why is MOTIVE a critical part of many Elements of Proof?
Again, here you go making things up with "Are you saying that no one is responsible for their actions? " - SAD.
Go back and read your own post, asking the same questions. Sad that you can't even read what you write, let alone with anyone else does.
I know what I wrote and I know when you are making things up.
Abetting - to encourage or incite others to commit crimes.
Multiple people understanding the same meaning could be seen as evidence if they all were to testify to the same thing, that Trump's words were seen as a call to take action against Congress on that day.I assume his entire Jan 6th speech will be gone over by the Congressional committee. The keywords entire speech in its proper context.
I would also think this man's defense will be shot down due to lack of evidence. You forget this is a court of law, and evidence is all that matters, not someone saying he felt he got a subliminal message from Trump. I can't believe I am even replying to such rubbage, so ridiculous.And the rubbish is ignoring the lies told prior to January 6 about a stolen election, the organization by his campaign of the January 6 rally, and Trump unilaterally making the decision to send the crowd to the Capitol despite rally organizers having no plan in place to do so. Combined with the speech and the various others who spoke and you have a crowd that was clearly incited.
Saying it was just his speech is your latest attempt at ignoring critical facts about the entirety of how these people were programmed for months.
It's not surprising at all that a Trump apologist would ignore the majority of his actions and then call it rubbish. Open your eyes for a change.If I understand which "defense" you are talking about, you are probably correct since several judges have discounted such testimony.
Where it will be relevant, however, is when and if Trump goes to trial for seditious conspiracy.
It certainly could...if one were biased already to believe anything bad or wrong. Those looking for truth an honesty will not see it that way.
It is finally time for people to look back in history and do what other right thinking people did when their political party went off the rails as the Republican Party has done.
1. Move to another party such as when Northern Democrats did in the mid-1800s as they moved to the Republican Party
2. Create a new party, such as what Abraham Lincoln did when the Republican Party was created.
We need two parties to try to prevent extremists from taking over our country. Right now the Republican Party is totally in the hands of Trump extremists and the Democratic Party is fighting off (successfully so far) a take over by extremists on the Left.
We need to move back to the 1970s (minus the southern Democrats) where moderates of both parties were in control and democracy was secure. While I liked Reagan (and voted for him twice), I was blind to the brand of destructive conservatism he brought with him that has festered and morphed into the Trump Republicans of today.
Here is who Trump and the RNC want to pardon. (New videos on the attack on the Vice President of the United States - aka "legitimate political discourse")
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … nr-vpx.cnnI believe there are two elements required to support a charge of incitement: the incendiary words and the speaker’s intent to wreak havoc. Mr. Trump’s lawyers claimed his speech was hyperbolic, not to be taken literally. And he didn’t mean for anyone to break the law.
So how do we measure a speaker’s intent? There’s an objective test: would a reasonable person, hearing the words, understand them as incitement? Or would they excuse the speaker as simply passionate, or even just kidding? But an objective, reasonable person may not understand the context well enough to assess the speaker’s state of mind. So there’s a more subjective test of intent as well. A speaker may be guilty of incitement if they knew that their words were likely to produce lawless action but said them anyway, either because the speaker wanted that lawless action to occur, or they simply didn’t care that their words would lead to a riot.
In my opinion, there’s lots of evidence revealing Mr. Trump’s intent, or state of mind. There's his long record of violent rhetoric, both spoken and on Twitter (before the platform banned him). He never seemed to care when his words caused chaos or damage to individuals, to the stock market, to America’s allies around the world, even to Americans trying to cope with the pandemic. He told his audiences to rough up protesters and to lock up his political opponents. He suggested drinking bleach or trying unproven drugs to fight the corona virus, and some people followed those instructions. And for months he had promoted the “big lie,” urging his followers to reclaim an election he insisted had been stolen from him. Finally, he called on his supporters to rally in Washington on January 6 to “stop the steal.”
But after promising rally-goers that he would accompany them to the Capitol, he instead went back to the White House. There his reported actions further revealed his state of mind. He was said to be delighted watching the Capitol riot on TV. He took no action to stop his followers, despite pleas from advisors and family that he intervene. He ignored warnings of danger and pleas for help from political allies like Sen. Tommy Tuberville and House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, who were trapped in the Capitol. And during the riot he even encouraged his mob to go after then-Vice President Mike Pence, knowing that Pence was in danger. Hours later, as police began to get the riot under control, he finally posted a video asking rioters to go home. But even then he repeated his charges of a stolen election and told the rioters that he loved them. In the days that followed, after more than 700 arrests, a number of the rioters defended their actions by saying that they were only following Trump’s orders. All this constitutes proof of intent.
As the Supreme Court acknowledged in Watts, political speech is raw, rowdy, belligerent, in your face. So long as it remains speech, it enjoys First Amendment protection. But once accompanied by lawless action, it’s no longer protected. And in any case, freedom to speak doesn’t protect speakers from the consequences of their speech. When Mr. Trump’s words produced immediate, lawless action, when his words were directly followed by rampage, unlawful entry, property damage, physical injury, and death, there is no way to give those words First Amendment cover.EXTREMELY well put, Faye. Unfortunately, for those who need to understand this the most, they will cover their ears and close their eyes and mind in order to push their false narrative.
I must ask you to provide a quote whereas Trump said to "drink or ingest the bleach.
Here is his statement that was later twisted out of context by CNN and MSNBC. That statement has been fact-checked a multitude of times.
"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?"
He continued.
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."
Source -- https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … ronavirus/
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/po … 113754708/
I am not sure what tweets you are referring to. However, his words could be used as evidence. The problem is the words must show evidence of some form of true clear order to commit a crime. Context is important.Mr. Trump speculated that, since disinfectants kill the COVID-19 virus on surfaces, it was worth investigating whether they might work as a treatment. His out-loud wondering about the possible benefits of injecting disinfectant had no scientific basis but did encourage harmful and deadly experimentation.
The CDC in 2020 issued a report on unsafe coronavirus prevention practices in the U.S. According to the report, 4% of the 502 respondents stated that they had drunk or gargled diluted bleach in the past month (early summer 2020). Also, a group of Trump supporters at that time started promoting what the Food and Drug Administration described as a "dangerous bleach" mixture called "Miracle Mineral Solution" as a cure for the coronavirus.
There are people who hang on to every word of a president. They want to get information and guidance out of briefings.
His insistence on weighing into those high-stakes medical discussions with his completely uneducated musings had already proven to be dangerous, with his relentless cheerleading of hydroxychloroquine.
I'm just saying he had the most powerful position on the planet and it should have been used to disseminate medically accurate information. Actually, he would have faired much better to simply have let the highly qualified medical professionals do all of the talking.First, let me say this, and this is my honest view. as a Republican that supported Trump, I am not open to looking for anything that is just not there. I am not looking to turn a simple statement into a horrendous mistruth. Not looking to see anything but the words I hear or read in the context they are written or said. many Democrats have done this with almost everything that comes out of Trump's mouth. I find it a very intelligent behavior. I certainly will defend context when need be. I am sick of this kind of behavior and disgusted with the hypocrisy that comes with it. IT saddens me to see some in our society willing to be so dumbed down. Yes, Trump has made statements that are inappropriate and proven to be untrue. But in the case of some claiming he told people to drink bleach... This is ridiculous. It makes me truely understand I am conversing with people that I don't respect the truth that as a rule conyext provides.
I have given my best evaluation of the incident where Trump was addressing a question to William Bryan, the undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security that was sitting at the side of him. The wording of the question clearly indicates that they had a previous conversation about the matter of disinfectants, light therapy, and INJECTING not ingesting some form of what Trump called disinfectant into the lung... Trump clearly indicates any treatments would need to be done by a "medical doctor".
At any rate, I feel the bleach statement is misinformation in the context of Trump's words, and the fact he was addressing His comments came after William Bryan, the undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security with a pure question.
I never buy into switching up words, or what format those words were offered up. In this case, they were not directed at the American people but a scientist in the way of an inquisitive question. A question that was provoked from a one on one prior conversation with William Bryan, the undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security. Trump, would have had even known about these forms of treatments being considered if it had not been shared by Bryan. One could certainly say he skrewed up the terminology, but it is well known Trump is inquisitive and very transparent.
CNN started the tale, and I can see it lives on. I like full context. And full context, in this case, gives the facts very clearly. And most people would realize ingesting does not have the same definition of injecting. Myself, I understood Trump's question, Bryan, and felt his words were confusing, but never dangerous when the entire statement was heard or read. But then I don't look for hidden meanings and secret messages. As many today do.
And yes, I would agree if his statement was directed at the People of America it would be uncalled for and inappropriate. He was directing that statement in question form to a scientist. Mind you a scientist that he clearly stated twice in that statement that they had some form of prior conversation about these new treatments for COVID that were being looked into...
And yes some might be gullible enough to pick up a CNN blurb and run with it, never realizing the full context of what was being said and how it was being said to. His full statement clarifies he was directing his quarry to William Bryan. He makes no mention of drinking anything... Again note his first two words ---
"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I THINK YOU SAID that hasn’t been checked, BUT YOU'RE going to test it. AND THEN I SAID supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) AND I THINK YOU SAID you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?" (DOES THIS NOT INDICATE A PRIOR CONVERSATION TO YOU?)
He continued.
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by INJECTION inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the LUNGS and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, SO THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO USE A MEDICAL DOCTOR, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."
WHere in this statement did he claim one should drink anything? Did he not say one would need to use a medical doctor?
In my opinion, you are spreading misinformation, just adding your view, and in this case, I feel your view makes no sense at all.
It would appear you are willing to add your own meaning to Trump's words when they are really very clear. He certainly was not articulate with his description while speaking with the scientist, but it was clear they had discussed the topic of several treatments that involved light therapy, and some form of respiratory therapy whereas medication is infused into the lung. Such as a respiratory treatment that has been used for decades now. Trump clearly uses poor terminology. But also added these therapies would need to be done by a "medical doctor" did he not? Full context matters, words matter...
And as far as presidents go Trump was not your typical president, and everyone that voted for him knew that... I certainly never expected to get a politician. This was one of the reasons he was elected.
Ingest and inject have totally different meanings... At no time did Trump tell anyone to drink bleach..."I am not looking to turn a simple statement into a horrendous mistruth. " - is not a "simple" statement, it was dangerous speculation that led to people getting sick and dying as a result of his stupidity.
Isn't it simply amazing that you can't intuit that "drink", "ingest", "inject", and the like are all saying the same thing, put something in the body - THAT WAS his context - put something dangerous into ones body. But here you go ranting and raving because Faye didn't use a specific word to convey the same meaning as the word you prefer. That is disingenuous wordsmithing.
"I certainly never expected to get a politician. " - You certainly didn't, you got a dangerously mentally ill idiot.Blah blah blah... done with the subject. Well Proved my point.
I should have been more direct in my thought was headed. Mr. Trump, needed to use more restraint and caution when talking about "disinfectants" potentially being used in the body. As I stated previously, there were people who took his statement seriously. They listened to him for accurate information and guidance. But Poison centers received 45,550 exposure calls related to cleaners and disinfectants after that statement. A 20% increase from the year before. His off the cuff medical musings were irresponsible.
There are a lot of people who actually listen to the words coming out of the president’s mouth, so when he hypes unproven drugs as a cure for COVID-19, drugs that later turn out to be ineffective at best and deadly at worst or suggests disinfectants should be looked at for use inside the body, there’s a strong possibility they might actually take him up on it.
Yes, most of us have more sense than that but many people didn't.I shared my opinion on the contexts I gleaned from the questionTrump posed to William Bryan, the undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security in regard to a conversation they had had about possible treatments that were being studied to treat COVID? We clearly don't agree on the contexts of his exchange with Bryan.
And at this point, you are clearly deflecting --- This fact is, you claimed Trump told people to drink bleach. I suggest you prove that statement before moving on to another accusation in regard to people taking Trump up on drinking bleach. It was CNN as well as Biden that spread that mistruth... So, I would blame them before blaming Trump if anyone tried to use bleach or any disinfectant to prevent getting COVID.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/po … 113754708/
Again, Trump was speaking directly to William Bryan, and he was asking a question... And again he made mentioned that any treatments should be done by a "medical doctor"...
I feel I have more than made my point, and offered direct quotes to help you see how I came to my conclusion.
I am not sure why you keep shooting yourself in the foot with your own quotes? An interesting way of debating.
You wrote that Trump said - "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, ...", Isn't that basically what Faye said? Seems like it to me. Maybe it is because he didn't use the words "drink" or "ingest" that you think make Faye's comment false? That is called "playing dangerous word games".
I guess I missed something, did Faye say Trump committed a crime by saying those words? Maybe it was the crime of stupidity, lol.It is clear you have a problem with context and feel it perfectly fine to change a word or two to suit your narrative. Perhaps you just do not realize inject or injection in no way means to physically drink something. Which could be ingested
What does injecting someone mean?
Inject -- To inject a substance such as medicine into someone means to put it into their body using a device with a needle called a syringe. He was injected with a sedative and discharged the same day.
Ingest -- take (food, drink, or another substance) into the body by swallowing or absorbing it.
Faye clearly used the word 'DRINK bleach. I see neither word present in Trump's statement. I do know you have also frequently repeated that misinformation.
Plus one must read both paragraphs to distinguish the subject of the full thought Trump was expressing. I realize you just have been conditioned to hone in on a sentence, sometimes a half of a sentence... However, it is only fair to delve further into context by reading a full thought. Trump's statement mentions LUNGS... did you miss that word? Last I knew when one drinks it goes via the esophagus into the stomach, not the lung. The first paragraph clearly shows he had discussed
Trump's full statement WHICH WAS A QUESTION TO William Bryan, the undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security AS HIS FIRST WORDS INDICATE ---
"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?"
He continued.
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."
Trump was addressing William Bryan scientists present directing his question to him as he sat on the sidelines ---, and he clearly said in full
"So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think YOU SAID that hasn’t been checked, but YOU'RE going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think YOU SAID you’re going to test that, too."
It was clear, he had a prior conversation in regards to the subject with William Bryan. It was clear to me Trump did not have the medical know-how to express what they had talked about with this scientist. However, in no way did he direct anyone to DRINK bleach. It was CNN that twisted the entire conversation into a ridiculous story, and some continue to spread the story to this day.
I would suppose there are many who love to repeat this tall tale. In my opinion, it shows a lack of fairness, and a true tendency to ignore or comprehend the full context of a given statement or full thought of what is being expressed.
SO NO that is not what Faye said --- she repeated the DRINK BLEACH lone that is getting pretty old. UNLESS you feel ingesting means the same as injecting. He in no way was saying drink anything one only need to read the entire question he directed at William Bryan.
Faye did not say Trump committed a crime --- she said Trump expressed the idea that drinking bleach would cure COVID --- which he clearly did not.
I am very surprised that after reading the full contents of the words rump directed at a scientist you would still buy into this misinformation.
I will drop this conversation. I have said what I am going to say about the drink bleach statement. Believe what you please. I have fully expressed my point on this subject, hopefully, anyone that reads this will adopt my point, with the clear quote, the context of Trump's words, and the setting he was in, as well as the fact he was addressing a scientist that he clearly had had a conversation about the subject.
Sharlee, Wilderness - why are Republicans legitimizing the violence of the insurrection?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/07/politics … index.htmlI have no respect for CNN, and will not read their dribble. I will leave that for those that like that form of news.
I understand that you have no respect for sites that report real news that you don't like. Instead, I see you prefer the lies of FAKE Fox News and Brietbart and Newsmax and OAN rather honest outlets like CNN.
I am amazed you think real news outlets like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, BBC, Guardian, Reuters, AP, MSNBC and others like them are garbage (they are report the same thing, btw). No wonder you are so misinformed.
And now Trump is guilty of yet another crime - Destruction of Gov't Property. When will it end? (When he goes to jail?)
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02 … -january-6Another part of the Coup - Republican Voter Fraud.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … -politics/It would seem two less of anyone on this thread leaves two or maybe three to carry on any form of conversation. And they share n affinity towards pure groupthink, it should be fun to watch this conversation.
You do know, don't you Sharlee, that many studies on the subject clearly show "groupthink" is a characteristic of your side while (so long as you don't go too far Left) independent thinking is a well known characteristic of my side.
Here, try reading this - https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … _prejudice
and this - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 6916301283
and this - http://patrick-fournier.com/d/cours4d-6607.pdf
These articles describe why you think the way you do and why you are part of the Trump cult.
I summarize these, and other articles about the subject, here - http://hub.me/aapSE (for RWA) and here - http://hub.me/abFso (for SDO)
That easily explains why Trump Republicans are so enthralled with Trump - you all think like him - little or no deviation. You certainly can't say that about my side - those that oppose the insurrection and believe in truth and the American way (as well as mom and apple pie.)How about a peek at Left Wing Authoritarianism for some balance? Just a few to peek at.
Left-wing authoritarians share key psychological traits with far right, Emory study finds
https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/09/ … ampus.html
Large study indicates left-wing authoritarianism exists and is a key predictor of psychological and behavioral outcomes
https://www.psypost.org/2021/06/large-s … omes-61318
Left-Wing Authoritarianism Is Real And Needs To Be Taken Seriously In Political Psychology, Study Argues
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2021/10/01/le … dy-argues/
And, how about a peek at Right-wing Authoritarianism, Left-wing Authoritarianism, and pandemic-mitigation authoritarianism just for giggles
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365073/I absolutely do not disagree with you TS, there is definitely a universe of Left-Wing Authoritarian followers (as well as Left-Wing SDO types) that exhibit the same traits.
The difference is that in America and Canada, the ratio of Right-wing Authoritarian Followers to Left-wing ones is like 10 to 1. My own survey makes that clear.I read your article with the survey. You are much more of an authority than I on RWA. Yet, I am not sure if an assumption of 10:1 can be made since the survey was patterned for RWA discovery in my view, however as I said I am no expert. With recent studies into LWA and the last article I posted inclusion of pandemic-mitigation authoritarianism makes it clear to me they all have commonalities, yet differences as well. And, I see all three at play today with this pandemic as the setting.
If I remember correctly, buried in Altemayer's work is the note that the "Right-wing" referred to where the majority of those who score high on the test sit in the French parliament (or maybe it was the Canadian one, but France sticks in my mind).
Also, consider that those studies were initially trying to answer the question of why so many otherwise intelligent Germans blindly followed Hitler in WW II. The fact that it fits what they discovered about far Right (and to some extent, far-Left) traits was not the goal, just the findings.
In other words, they didn't set out to prove the far-Right has these characteristics, it just turned out that way.I do remember from my peek at the original RWA study it was the question of blind loyalty with those who followed Hitler and discarded shall we say morality. One might say it is obvious it would be RWA from that study as Nazism is considered far right wing, while some say no isn't. Yet, what perked up curiosity was the recent studies of LWA while remembering comparatively the RWA studies far out number the LWA studies. I think the commonalities speak volumes and I considered that with pondering the differences between conservative religiosity and liberal as well.
Here is a key finding from one of your sources:
Another key finding is that authoritarianism from both ends of the spectrum is predictive of personal involvement in political violence. While left-wing authoritarianism predicts for political violence against the system in power, right-wing authoritarianism predicts for political violence in support of the system in power.
It would be interesting to investigate this. There is no question the insurrectionists/rioters on Jan 6 would be high-scoring RWAs. But, can the same be said of the Summer rioters at the BLM protesters? I think not since I don't believe the rioters where rioting for political reasons, but for the wonton destruction they could cause. The Trump mob was following their SDO leader.Agreed studying it further would be interesting. I disagree with wanton destruction statement to an extent. I don't think all the rioters were just simply unruly opportunist and there were actors who were politically motivated. From my faded memory from sociology study a key element of rioting is collective identity. If not political then what? BTW . . . I view the social warrior as being a political actor, though others may disagree. I don't like the 'all bucket' thinking. Look at the Portland Riots. As far as I am concerned those were politically motivated. Yet, that is just wandering and an opinion at this point.
Edit: When I use the phrase social warrior I am not limiting it any specific spectrum - left/right. As far as I am concerned there are social warriors on both sides it is a matter of the issue. For instance those on the right banning books as I see it are social warriors."there were actors who were politically motivated. " - I have no doubt a few of the actual rioters on the Left were being destructive for political reasons (as well as a few from the Right who showed up to counter riot - more of the former than the latter).
However, based on what I observed, most of the rioters on the Left used the protest against injustice as an excuse to destroy things. Had they been truly political, they wouldn't have waited until nightfall and generally after the peaceful protest was over to begin their reign of terror.
This is entirely different from the Jan 6 insurrection. As we know now there was a lot of prior planning and coordination to break into the Capitol. (How much of that coordination involves people in Trump's orbit is still coming out). The insurrection came during, not after, the largely peaceful protest. Also, the insurrectionists were 1,000+ strong while at any given summer riot, there were less than 100 active rioters most of the time.
When you say the Portland riots, are you talking about the actual rioters or the peaceful protestors? To me, it makes a difference because they are not the same people.
Here is an interesting take on one of the riots that I was not aware of:
https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/08/21/w … e-for-now/
This wasn't what I was looking for but this is another report on the same thing - https://www.opb.org/article/2020/09/25/ … d-leaders/
This was more like what I was searching for, a NYT analysis.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/portlan … sters.htmlOkay, we will just have to agree to disagree on some points as it relates to RWA/LWA and not on rioting. Our perspectives differ. Yes, I am talking about rioters. I understand the difference between those who were peacefully protesting and rioting And, I have seen enough videos of those who were at the front facing the police lines throwing bottles and other projectiles to know it was violence, though it was not 'rioting' . . . at that point.
Crude, murdering Putin strikes again.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/08/europe/p … index.htmlIt's a real tragedy that some people can talk only that Putin is a murderer killer etc and they feel very shy of talking about the crimes the Americans have done like carpet bombing of Vietnam and killing of thousands, the atomic bombing of defenseless people in Japan 200,000 dead, the murder of Allende, the military coups in Iran, and the devious plan to get Gaddafi and Hussein murdered, not forgetting over 30 attempts to kill Castro. Obviously, these things are not to be talked about and only what is to be talked about is that Putin is a killer
Trump sets off another GOP civil war.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/politics … index.htmlIf this lawsuit succeeds in barring an insurrection supporter from running for Congress, then America has a powerful tool to protect itself from Donald Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/08/politics … index.htmlGreat! Another tool in the Democrat arsenal to eliminate political opponents that might cause a loss somewhere.
But if insurrectionists cannot run, I would have to ask how many have been accused, and convicted, of insurrection. The tool sounds pretty dull to me; a knife that can't cut butter.
Even Sen McConnell says what happened on Jan 6 was a .violent insurrection. So does DOJ. Only insurrection supporters on this forum don't understand that.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/08/politics … index.htmlNational Archive Refers Donald Trump's theft of gov't records to DOJ!! How cool is that. Another slam dunk crime against the first mafia boss to become president.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/politics … index.html
It just got Worse! Trump possibly stole classified documents as well. WOW!Donald Trump: Coup Maker and Cover Up Artist (known for his orange face)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/10/politics … index.htmlA major Coup plotter is having second thoughts - now calling it a Cult.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/politics … index.htmlNow it is revealed that Trump flushed the People's records down the toilet and my wife just told me one of his former staff reported that she saw Trump actually eating records he shredded. Besides being dangerously mentally ill, what does that tell you?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … ay-vpx.cnnAgain CNN, no names, no actual proof of what this notepaper was or had on it. And it was found in the president's residence. Figures CNN would report this kind of BS associated with a toilet. You are certainly stuck in getting trump land. You overlook such important stories like the inflation rate falling once again this month to 7.5. he is in Carter territory now...
Why are you so allergic to the truth, which is all CNN reports (unlike your favorite propaganda sites). Why do you keep shooting the messenger rather than consider the real criminal - Trump?
It seems you held to your word and didn't watch the video. What is not surprising is you think Haggerman's reporting is BS. That is what a Trump cult member will think.
You should be stuck in Trumpland as well if you cared anything about America."Why are you so allergic to the truth, which is all CNN reports (unlike your favorite propaganda sites)."
I have little doubt that CNN heard the story - when they claim that "reported today"... it is likely true that they heard it. I doubt they simply make up more than a small percentage of their click bait.
Whether the story itself is true is another matter entirely, and CNN doesn't care. Especially if it is something negative about Trump - I've not seen them reporting negative gossip about any Democrat.Unlike Fake Fox News, CNN doesn't "make things up". Sometimes they get it wrong which, unlike your side, they freely admit and correct once recognized. Why doesn't your side do that?
And yes, they "heard" it. They were reporting on Maggie Haggerman's new book.
Is there anything Positive to report about Trump (save for Operation Warp Speed?). I can't think of anything. The man is a disaster who wants to remake America over in Putin's image.
If you haven't seen CNN report anything negative about Democrats, then clearly you do not read or listen to CNN.
What "gossip" BTW, her story was verified by other sources.I did not say CNN did not report negative things about Democrats: I said CNN does not repeat negative gossip about Democrats. Only Trump or anyone remotely connected to Trump (including all Republicans).
Of course there are positive things to report about Trumps years in the White House (not so much since he left). Problem is that you will automatically give the credit to someone else, for it is not allowed to even consider that Trump did something good in his lifetime." I said CNN does not repeat negative gossip about Democrats." - Same answer.
Again, you are wrong. I have said many times that Trump has done a few good things, but only a few. For example, I always give Trump credit for signing off on Operation Warpspeed. You just keep ignoring it because it doesn't fit your narrative.One hardly counts as a "few". That would, in my experience and vocabulary refer to at least a half dozen given the time span and opportunities. I suspect you have a very different concept, though, and that's alright. The English language is slippery and interpreted differently by different people.
Boy, you certainly have problems with reading the written word, don't you? Let us try this again.
I said "Trump has only done a "few" good things". THEN, I provided a single example which you somehow took to mean the ONLY example. That is how your wordsmithing gets you in trouble.That's correct; you said a "few" and then provided one example. Which is what I said, isn't it?
No, it isn't. Go back and reread what I wrote then what you wrote and you will find you are playing word games again.
"and CNN doesn't care. " - And what leads you to that False assumption? Is it because you think CNN is no better than the Right-wing propaganda outlets you listen to and read?
If they cared they would verify each story before reporting it. They do not.
And THAT is another of your lies. You sure make a lot of them, don't you?
LOL You probably do think CNN verifies each and every story that they report as "someone said" or other such wording. The only thing they are going to verify is that it was said, not that it is true.
Example: the report mentioned that Trump flushed government paperwork. Did CNN (I think that's where it came from, anyway) look at the paperwork? Did they find government documentation? Or did they take the word of some maid that had to unplug the toilet and let it go at that, assuming that it was true and assuming that it was government property flushed?Did Haberman verify her sources? Yes
Did CNN verify Haberman's assertions in her book? Yes. Of course they did, that is what good journalism does. You are too use to Fox and the other right-wing propaganda sources not doing good journalist work and you think everybody is guilty of their bad habits.
It's been discovered Trump is hiding even more information about his role in his coup attempt.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/10/politics … index.htmlAnd again CNN... Where did she dispose of this batch, hopefully not in another toilet?
I see you have finally sunk to shooting the messenger since facts and reality fail you.
You forgot to include the rest of the story. From your link: "Sources familiar with the investigation say they haven't drawn any final conclusions, suggesting the gaps in the records may be explained by the use of personal cell phones, or because Trump was simply not making or receiving many calls during the riot. There is also the possibility the Archives will find more records that can explain the gaps."
One would assume that if the workers in the Archives are as incompetent as our President is they haven't found half of what is there.The ONLY good explanation is if Trump simply went incommunicado and spoke to no one while he was reveling in the violence at the Capitol and replaying it over and over again. All other explanations are illegal and an attempt to hide things.
Who in their right mind would ever believe Trump could keep off the phone for that long. So no, I didn't forget the "rest of the story".
Phone logs are phone logs and they are chronological. If the Achieve doesn't have them, then who stole them and why? I think the more likely scenario is that Trump, as was his habit to hide things, used somebody else's private cell phone. If they didn't preserve the records of those calls, then once again Trump and his accomplices broke the law.
Why would you assume it is the Archive workers who are incompetent. It is Trump and his staff who are the criminals.Well, as usual you ignored the point. There are other possibilities than Trump being a bad boy, including a simple inability to find the records. Maybe the record keeper fell asleep on the job rather than working.
But of course all other potential reasons are ignored in favor of "Trump Bad Boy"; the eternal claim from Trump haters.
(It's comical that you find that an inability to find misplaced records is "illegal" in your effort to "prove" Trump's malfeasance.)Well, as usual, you are wrong. I didn't miss the point, I addressed it. You just didn't understand it.
More PROOF that Trump's COUP is succeeding!! A sad day for what used to be America thanks to Trump and is blind following.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/10/politics … index.htmlWhy is Traitor Trump still in communication with another murdering dictator, Kim Un? What is he planning? Is he passing secrets? I would not be surprised.
Here are some of the ways Trump is destroying American Democracy:
- While the percentage of Americans who think Democracy is under attack dropped from 56% in Aug to 52% today (still over 1/2 of Americans!!) the percentage who think Democracy is being "Tested" but not under attack grew from 37% to 41%. That means around 93% of Americans think Democracy in America is in some sort of trouble! Interestingly, the percentages are more or less evenly split across the political spectrum. That means Democrats and non Trump-leaning independents think Trump is responsible while Trump Republicans and Right-Leaning Trump followers think Biden is the problem. Obviously, only one of those can be correct and common sense says that it is Trump's Big Lie that lies at the bottom of it.
- This is telling: This time last year 59% of Americans are Very or Somewhat confident the next elections will reflect the will of the people. Enter the Big Lie. Today, it is ONLY 44%!
-- 1) Men, more than women, 2) People of Color much more than Whites (impact of Right-wing propaganda), 3) Biden approvers MUCH more than Biden disapprovers, 4) College Graduates MUCH more than non-College Graduates (no surprise there), 5) Democrats/Liberals MUCH more than Republicans/Conservatives (Independents in the middle).
- (This is bad as well): 50% of Americans think that some candidate will overturn an election.
- Only 65% of Americans think that Jan 6 was a Crisis or Major Problem. Guess who the 35% are - Trump Republicans, of course.
- As expected, 36% of the respondents don't think the Select Committee will do any good.
- 54% (I would be one of those) think the insurrectionists are not being punished enough.
- (The power of Right-wing propaganda on display here): The percentage of people who don't think Biden is the legitimate winner of the 2020 election increased from 32% a year ago to 37% today.
- Of those who say Trump is the legitimate winner, the percentage who say there is Solid Evidence of massive voter fraud decreased from 73% to 61% while those thinking there is "Suspicion" increased from 22% to 39%
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … ruary-2022Did it occur to you that our Democracy is under attack?
When we see foreign citizens voting on how to run our cities or states it is under attack. When we see unlimited voting, without any verification of identity, it is under attack. When we watch gerrymandering to gain votes it is under attack. When we see ballots indiscriminately mailed, and accepted, without verification of who filled them out, it is under attack. When we see that purging voter rolls of people that no longer live in the area is declared wrong it is under attack.
There are, and always have been, efforts to control election results, but it is getting much worse with Democrat efforts to indiscriminately accept ballots from anyone and everyone.Not to mention the propaganda we are receiving daily from biased left media networks.
Give me some good examples of this so-called "propaganda" you claim the MSM (to you that is the biased left media) is putting out there? Bet you can't.
Under attack?
Like I've stated previously, foreign citizens had the ability to vote in the United States for at least a hundred years, and up until 1996 in federal elections. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say citizenship is a requirement for suffrage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_ … ted_States
Unlimited voting? Pretty sure it remains one person, one vote. As for the verification of identity argument, states had the right to modify that with the volume of mail-in ballots expected in 2020.
I agree with you about gerrymandering. Neither party should have the right to set the boundaries for areas to gain an advantage.
Not sure why indiscriminately mailed out is an issue as it would be a federal offense to open someone else's mail and then another to submit that ballot. And in a state such as Pennsylvania, there needed to verification with identification upon making the request in the first place. Likely why the courts sided with voters about some leniency since there were 10 times more mail-in voters in 2020 than in 2016.
Purging of voter rolls is not wrong, but when done by one of the candidates in the election he is purging, as Brian Kemp did in Georgia, or done so close to an election as to not allow people ample time to check their registration status, then it should be wrong.
And Democrats do not seek to indiscriminately accept ballots from anyone and everyone as your perception claims. Even their proposed laws to federalize elections still recognizes states' rights to require identification. But what Democrats seek to do is to not allow discriminately restricting certain citizens Constitutional rights."Pretty sure it remains one person, one vote."
You might explain that to the people that refuse to require ID, or that have a hissy fit when voter registration rolls are purged. Sounds more to me like they want as many votes as can be squeezed in, legal or not.
Can you truly be so naive as to think that some people will not open an envelope with BALLOT printed on it when it comes to their new house? Or that they will not fill it out and return it? Do you really think that all people are 100% law abiding, especially with the hatred that this country has descended into over candidates?
"Purging of voter rolls is not wrong, but when done by one of the candidates in the election he is purging, as Brian Kemp did in Georgia, or done so close to an election as to not allow people ample time to check their registration status, then it should be wrong."
I have never, ever "checked my registration status". Have you? Did Kemp leave a week to "check the registration status", or did he leave a couple of hours? If the former, that's plenty of time to do something that no one does anyway. One of the bigger problems is that Democrats seem to assume that everyone is an idiot and cannot vote if it isn't nearly hand delivered with someone to hold the pencil for them - this is not true and it's time to recognize that voting does take some effort. It's a matter of how much, and I do not find a few hours (registration, travelling to polling places, filling out the form, putting it in the mailbox, etc.) to be anywhere near as onerous as Democrats pretend it is.
"
"But what Democrats seek to do is to not allow discriminately restricting certain citizens Constitutional rights."
Good thing that no one is trying to do that. But then why do Democrats insist that everyone, dead or alive, legal or not, citizen or not, shall have the right to vote? Why do they insist that there be no ID requirement? The only answer I can come up with is that they don't care about the validity of votes; that any vote at all is acceptable.So you think that people open mail not addressed to themselves that comes to their house? How often do you think that happens? And how many are willing to risk getting caught breaking the laws? You assume that a large percentage of people who have moved to new residences are law breakers willing to break two federal laws. I think that the amount of people in that scenario would be very miniscule, if any at all.
Limiting drop boxes in big cities is definitely trying to restrict voting rights. How much fraud was attributed to drop boxes that demanded such a change? Has anyone presented the stats on why there needed to be such a change? If not, the intent can be surmised to be voter suppression.
And Democrats do not insist any of the things you claimed. This is another one of your gross exaggerations of someone else's position that you clearly do not understand or openly lie about. I even noted that the law Democrats put forward does not infringe on a state's right to require identification to vote and then you ignored that to make the false claim that 'they insist that there be no ID requirement.'
And yes, I have checked my registration status to be sure that I could vote."How often do you think that happens? " - You do realize, don't you, that so long as just ONE doesn't, then Wilderness thinks EVERYBODY does it.
"How often do you think that happens? And how many are willing to risk getting caught breaking the laws?"
All it takes is one and the idea that no security is needed is blown. That is the typical Democrat philosophy: "if you can't prove massive fraud, without checking, then it's OK".
"Limiting drop boxes in big cities is definitely trying to restrict voting rights. How much fraud was attributed to drop boxes that demanded such a change?"
Of course it is limited - we do not, cannot, and will not place a drop box in front of every residence. The question is how many we need, how many are necessary and how many are reasonable. Nor do we need stats on how much fraud drop boxes have caused in the past, not when we are changing the basics of voting by expecting 10X as many mail in ballots - common sense says take what security we can and still be reasonable. The problem, again, is that Democrats define "reasonable" as "absolutely minimum effort necessary" while Republicans define it as Mirrian Webster does: " MODERATE, FAIR". We neither need or should require that "absolutely minimum effort necessary".
If you don't think Democrats are against voter ID then you badly need to re-think that position. They may have allowed states to make the call, but it was out of political necessity and not what is desired or fought for. How many states have we seen fighting against voter ID, and were they Democrats or Republicans fighting to end it? How many Democrats are fighting to require ID?
Well, perhaps I should wait and maybe I will too. I've only lived in this house 22 years and voted for 55; perhaps I will check, too, in the future.In Georgia, there are 158 counties and 132 of them have below 100,000 people. The average county size is closer to 70,000 people. Not sure that one drop box for 1,559 people in that smallest county is fair compared to 1 for every 100,000 people in Cobb County, which is what the law now states is all that is required.
One can already see the effect that dropping drop boxes from 87 to 20 has had on voter turnout in the three largest counties.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/fewer-vote … 7RSC3FQYY/
And it's Merriam-Webster by the way.Sorry for the typo. One drop box in a county, unless there is but one village (as some around me have) seems insufficient. The counties I'm familiar with would leave many driving 20 miles or more to the drop box and that isn't reasonable. Of course if the same ballot could be mailed in then it all changes and it is reasonable; the drop boxes are merely an added convenience.
Either way, of course, it isn't about population; it's about convenience. If the people are concentrated into a 5 mile radius then one drop box should be sufficient, given that there is parking to use it. A mile long line of cars waiting to stick a ballot in doesn't work (for me) either.
Your article makes the same point I did; that drop boxes can be used rather than mail for "mail in ballots" but are not required. As such, the USPS will deliver right from your doorstep to the counting location, so what is the big deal about fewer drop boxes? It may save the Post Office money (while passing costs to a different entity), but not the voter. What the article did not show was that voter participation fell after the number of boxes was reduced - only that people switched to USPS. No change to voter turnout, then. Just additional load on the postal service.
"If you don't think Democrats are against voter ID then you badly need to re-think that position." - Prove it, just don't state it. Why do you need to prove it? Because thinking people know it not to be true.
How many states? NONE. How many Democrats? Maybe a couple (which means ALL in your interpretation).
You are Republican, you don't need to worry about being purged.No states have had arguments against voter ID? Perhaps that's the problem; you don't read "current events" unless it's negative about Trump.
And you you still make ridiculous assertions without providing proof. You are so often wrong, it must be assumed anything you say requires proof before it is to be believed.
And, as a corollary, since you don't provide any proof, you should never be believed.
"You might explain that to the people that refuse to require ID" - Name me one election official who is doing that OR admit you are making that up as usual
1) "Do you really think that all people are 100% law abiding, " - We certainly know of one who is not - Trump
2) "Do you really think that all people are 100% law abiding, " - Do you think ALL people are 0% law abiding?
"But then why do Democrats insist that everyone, dead or alive, legal or not, citizen or not, shall have the right to vote? " - Sometimes you actually out do Trump with the lies. That is quite a feat! Congrats.
Yes, it does occur to me as my many, many posts make very clear. I am glad you are finally agreeing that it is Trump who is destroying American democracy.
- "When we see foreign citizens voting on how to run our cities or states it is under attack." - What, you don't believe in following the law anymore? That is surprising.
- "When we see unlimited voting, without any verification of identity" - Hey look everybody, he is making up another lie
- "When we watch gerrymandering to gain votes it is under attack." - I am glad you oppose Republican racial gerrymandering as well as political gerrymandering which I oppose as well
- "When we see ballots indiscriminately mailed, and accepted, without verification of who filled them out" - Hey look everybody, another famous Wilderness lie
- "When we see that purging voter rolls of people that no longer live in the area is declared wrong it is under attack." - You do understand, don't you, that that makes no sense whatsoever?
"with Democrat efforts to indiscriminately accept ballots from anyone and everyone." - WOW! Another Lie. You are on a roll.
This just in: Some of the records Trump stole and were recovered at his home were CLEARLY marked TOP SECRET.
I can see it now from those who castigated Hillary Clinton for retroactively having classified information on her home computer (which was never hacked). What? Trump did something wrong? Never!
BTW - the name of Maggie Haberman's new book about Trump is appropriately titled Confidence Man.Why is CNN playing nice with Trump and not calling what he did by its proper name - theft of gov't property? They use the milquetoast term "mishandled". The reporting is he kept the boxing of the records very secret, even from many of his staff, so they would know what he was running off with - some of it clearly marked TOP SECRET.
DOJ must investigate at the very least and charge him if he broke any laws (which is clearly looks like he did even though CNN won't come right out and say it.)
They need to treat Trump as Trump and the Republicans treated Hillary Clinton - LOCK HIM UP. (what goes around, comes around - it is only fair)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/politics … index.htmlI read the article, it seems they are very careful not to fully accuse Trump only through shadows... They are careful to cover their ass with statements like -- "Some of the documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago in recent months contained records the National Archives BELIEVED were classified,"
They go on --- "Legal experts tell CNN that any unauthorized retention or destruction of White House documents RAISES a red flag under a criminal law that prohibits the removal or destruction of official government records"
"One criminal law prohibits destroying government property -- provided the person charged intentionally violated the law.
As a former officer of the United States, Trump also has an ongoing obligation to protect classified information he received as president.
While in office, HE HAD THE ABILITY to declassify, making his own decisions. But that power ended when he left the presidency, and it's unclear whether he declassified any records held at Mar-a-Lago while he was still in office." DID HE DECLASSIFY the documents in question?
I think there is a lot of speculation going on, and it is clear more information is needed before we accuse this man of stealing documents.
We once again need to hear from the people involved --- If there are truely any people involved or is this once again a faceless smear campaign that the Democrats are famous for along with their henchmen CNN.
Trump claimed in a statement he is cooperating fully with the archives and returning whatever documents they want.
It is clearly in the hands of the DOJ to ascertain if a crime was committed. Not you or me... It's also unfair in my view to convict before a crime has been charged. t's as I always say, half-ass backward. And one would think the Dem's would give up on such ploys, they have been made fools of on each of their "lets' get Trump ventures"... They should concentrate on solving the countries true problems..."I read the article, it seems they are very careful not to fully accuse Trump" - Yes they are, as any respectable news reporting should be. Thank you for acknowledging that.
"As a former officer of the United States, Trump also has an ongoing obligation to protect classified information he received as president.
While in office, " - Then ask yourself - why didn't he do that? Why did he secretly steal those embarrassing records? Why didn't he do the legal thing and turn them over to the Archive?
If he did DECLASSIFY them, he hid that as well.
You think it is "speculation" that he purloined those documents, some of which were clearly marked TOP SECRET? Face it, he took them, no guesswork about that. The only questions are which laws did he break when he took them to Mar-a-lago?
Yes, Trump "claimed" that - but as usual he was lying. Otherwise the Archive wouldn't have threatened (and then did) go to DOJ and Congress with Trump's obstruction.
So, you haven't convicted Al Capone of murder in your eyes. You would go to your death defending his innocence (since that appears to be what you are willing to do for Trump).
And besides, you are doing the exact same thing to Biden with your Biden Derangement Syndrome. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Hopefully, there may still be a chance to "lock her and all her henchmen up"
Just broke two hours ago --- "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia: Durham
'Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.' https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clinto … se-servers
I mean facts, statements, Durham filing a motion on Feb. 11, 2022... Loads of info on what this bunch did... I think these deplorable just may do Time. Hopefully, they will get Hillary too.
"First on Fox: Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham says.
Durham filed a motion on Feb. 11 focused on potential conflicts of interest related to the representation of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman, who has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent. Sussman has pleaded not guilty.
The indictment against Sussman says he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work "for any client" when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.
But Durham's filing on Feb. 11, in a section titled "Factual Background," reveals that Sussman "had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign."
Durham’s filing said Sussman’s "billing records reflect" that he "repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations."
The filing revealed that Sussman and the Tech Executive had met and communicated with another law partner, who was serving as General Counsel to the Clinton campaign. Sources told Fox News that lawyer is Marc Elias, who worked at the law firm Perkins Coie.
Durham's filing states that in July 2016, the tech executive worked with Sussman, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm 1 on behalf of the Clinton campaign, numerous cyber researchers and employees at multiple internet companies to "assemble the purported data and white papers."
"In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data," the filing states. "Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract."
"Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish 'an inference' and 'narrative' tying then-candidate Trump to Russia," Durham states. "In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain 'VIPs,' referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton campaign."
Durham also writes that during Sussman's trial, the government will establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (DNS) internet traffic pertaining to "(i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump's Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP)."
Durham states that the internet company that Tech Executive-1 worked for "had come to access and maintain dedicated servers" for the Executive Office of the President as "part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP."
"Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump," Durham states.
The filing also reveals that Sussman provided "an updated set of allegations" including the Russian bank data, and additional allegations relating to Trump "to a second agency of the U.S. government" in 2017. Durham says the allegations "relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic" that Tech Executive-1 and others "had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump's New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider."
In Sussman's meeting with the second U.S. government agency, Durham says he "provided data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by these entities of internet protocol (IP) addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider," and claimed that the lookups "demonstrated Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations."
"The Special Counsel's Office has identified no support for these allegations," Durham wrote, adding that the "lookups were far from rare in the United States."
"For example, the more complete data that Tech Executive-1 and his associates gathered--but did not provide to Agency 2--reflected that between approximately 2014 and 2017, there were a total of more than 3 million lookups of Russian Phone-Prover 1 IP addresses that originated with U.S.-based IP addresses," Durham wrote. "Fewer than 1,000 of these lookups originated with IP addresses affiliated with Trump Tower."
Durham added that data collected by Tech Executive-1 also found that lookups began as early as 2014, during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office, which he said, is "another fact which the allegations omitted."
"In his meeting with Agency-2 employees, the defendant also made a substantially similar false statement as he made to the FBI General Counsel," Durham wrote. "In particular, the defendant asserted that he was not representing a particular client in conveying the above allegations."
"In truth and in fact, the defendant was representing Tech Executive-1--a fact the defendant subsequently acknowledged under oath in December 2017 testimony before Congress, without identifying the client by name," Durham wrote.
Former President Trump reacted to the filing on Saturday evening, saying Durham’s filing "provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia."
"This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution," Trump said. "In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death."
Trump added: "In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this."
Former chief investigator of the Trump-Russia probe for the House Intelligence Committee under then-Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., Kash Patel, said the filing "definitively shows that the Hillary Clinton campaign directly funded and ordered its lawyers at Perkins Coie to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia."
"Per Durham, this arrangement was put in motion in July of 2016, meaning the Hillary Clinton campaign and her lawyers masterminded the most intricate and coordinated conspiracy against Trump when he was both a candidate and later President of the United States while simultaneously perpetuating the bogus Steele Dossier hoax," Patel told Fox News, adding that the lawyers worked to "infiltrate" Trump Tower and White House servers.
The anti-Trump dossier, authored by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign through Elia's law firm, Perkins Coie.
Patel added that Sussman relayed the "false narrative" to U.S. government agencies "in the hopes of having them launch investigations of President Trump."
Sussmann's indictment is the second prosecution to come out of Durham's probe" Read more...The problem with locking Hillary up is that the FBI found she did nothing illegal. Inappropriate for sure, but not illegal. I guess your concern for not "convicting" anybody doesn't extend to anybody else but Trump. I think they call that hypocrisy, don't they?[/i]
You want me to read Fake Fox News why?
Provide me the text of Durham's filing since I can't find it. I certainly can't trust Fox's interpretation of it. Also, I will wait until a legitimate outlet reports on it - none have so far.Hmmmm, I see no link to the Durham filing yet.
Again I remind you Trump has not been charged or indicted for any crime. We only have media fodder and speculation. I only brought this subject up because it is factual, and it certainly involves Trump, and a campaign to smear him with unproven unsubstantiated accusations. And it wella[pears the Hillary Clinton Campaign is the culprit that paid for the plot to slander Donald Trump. If Durham is correct, and if he has all his facts in order, we certainly might have Sussman punished for his part. And perhaps we will see more indited as this all plays out.
Sussman has been indicted for a crime and awaits trial.
The indictment against Sussman says he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work "for any client" when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.
HOWEVER NEW EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDED ---Durham's filing on Feb. 11, 2022, in a section titled "Factual Background," reveals that Sussman "had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign."
Durham’s filing said Sussman’s "billing records reflect" that he "repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations."
This story just broke Friday, I am optimistic the actual motion file will be out for public viewing by Monday or Tuesday.
At any rate, several articles have been published using names and leaking what is in the document Durham filed.
I am all for seeing anyone committing crimes convicted. In this case, Durham has indited several that show he is weeding out those that committed crimes to subvert the 2016 election and smear Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
At any rate, it is interesting current news with some factual bit to it.
The trial will be very interesting to follow. It will be interesting to see if Durham has added a well-proven fact to what went down, who knew what, who may be guilty of crimes.
And let's not forget this fellow --- Russian analyst who was the source for Steele dossier arrested and charged with lying to FBI
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/04/poli … index.htmlSince you chose not to provide me back up for your claims (the text of Durham's filings), I found a RELIABLE source for information about it - CNN.
- Durham claims in his filing that "Sussmann claimed the (Internet) information "demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations," and provided this information to the CIA. I have two questions about that accusation: 1) what person in his right mind WOULDN'T turn over that information to the proper authorities to check out and 2) what is illegal about that? I guess the people having a cow over this 1) think this information should be hidden from authorities and 2) believe it to be illegal.
- Durham's office said it found nothing to support the allegation. (NOR did they find anything DISPROVING it either). The special counsel also noted that the data showed a Russian phone provider connection involving the Executive Office of the President "during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office." - DOESN'T that just contradict what Durham said about not finding supporting information? Which is it, did they find something or not? Curious minds want to know.
- "The data was compiled by a tech firm ... and the " exploited this arrangement by mining domain name system traffic associated with the Executive Office of the President and other data "for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump," Durham's prosecutors wrote." - Yeah? So? Isn't that something that needs to be proved in a court of law? Yet the tech company is not being charged with any illegal action. For that matter, neither is Sussmann. Why not?
- "But Durham's court filing doesn't allege that the pro-Clinton researchers use of internet data meant that there was any eavesdropping on content of communications. - AGAIN, why not? Where is the crime?
- What is Sussmann ACTUALLY charged with? How about allegedly lying to the FBI about whether he represented the Democrats at a particular time. A claim he has pled not guilty to. Isn't it YOU and Wilderness who should be jumping to Sussmann's defense since he hasn't even been tried yet or convicted? Or does your defense only apply to Trump?
Given how shaky Durham's case is against Sussmann, I will wager Sussmann will be found not guilty.
As to the Russian analyst, Igor Danchenko, that case doesn't look all that solid either.
Interesting. DOJ gets prison sentence for gov't employee who "mishandled" classified documents. The ex-Defense Department employee sentenced Thursday, Asia Janay Lavarello, was on a temporary assignment at the US Embassy in Manilla when she took classified documents from the embassy to her hotel room,
Not much different from Trump. Maybe he should worry more now. It all boils down to whether he can prove he declassified all of the classified documents in his possession at Mar-a-lago. (Of course, those aren't necessarily the only laws he broke.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/politics … index.htmlJust so no one forgets the long list of potential crimes (more than Al Capone?) Trump is involved in.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/12/politics … index.htmlAs long as "potential crimes" are the subject, shouldn't you include
Jaywalking
Speeding
DUI
Child pornography
Murder
Human Trafficking
Failure to pay the dentist
Writing bad checks
Running a red light
Performing a rolling stop (does he drive a Tesla?)
Spitting on the sidewalk
Having sexual relations with a porcupine (illegal in Florida)
As long as you're talking potential crimes that you are convinced he is guilty of (that would be about everything on the books), wouldn't you want to include them all? After all, we are all potentially guilty of committing every crime on the books.Even though it is evident you are just playing stupid, I am sure he is guilty of all of those as well, but I am talking about serious crimes, such as:
January 6: Lawsuits by Democratic lawmakers and police officers
Several members of the US Capitol Police and Washington, DC Metropolitan Police are also suing the former President, saying Trump's words and actions incited the riot.
Various cases accuse Trump of directing assault and battery; aiding and abetting assault and battery; and violating local Washington, DC, laws that prohibit incitement of riots and disorderly conduct.
White House documents: Moved to Mar-a-Lago? Classified? Flushed?
The National Archives, charged with collecting and sorting presidential material, says at least 15 boxes of White House records were recovered from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort -- including records that may have been classified.
2020 Election: Efforts to overturn Georgia results Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis is CRIMINALLY investigating what Trump or his allies may have done in their efforts to overturn Biden's victory in Georgia.
The Justice Department is looking at one aspect of a plot to put forward fake electors from seven states after a referral from the Michigan state attorney general.
Trump Organization: NY AG criminal and civil investigation
Since 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James has been investigating Trump's namesake business, and recently detailed what her office believes are "misleading or fraudulent" financial statements.
Trump Organization: NY DA criminal investigation
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg inherited that office's probe into Trump's businesses and is moving quickly. The investigation, which has been underway for several years, appears to be coming to a head with prosecutors focusing on the accuracy of the Trump Organization's financial statements when seeking financing
Personal finances: Litigation with niece Mary Trump
Trump and his niece Mary are in court over her cut of a 2001 family settlement.
Defamation: Suit over denial of rape claims by E. Jean Carroll
Magazine writer E. Jean Carroll alleged Trump raped her in a New York department store dressing room in the mid 1990s and defamed her when he denied the rape, said she was not his type and alleged she made the claim to boost sales of her book.
Wait, are you saying you have open investigations for all the crimes you listed there? Of course you're not, you're just being ignorant of some key details to make your latest ridiculous false equivalency.
Are you ignorant of what the word "potential" means? Every one of those actions is a "potential" crime that Trump, you or I might have committed.
Just as the ones listed in the link from Eso is. As always there is a big list of "crimes" that Trump is claimed to have committed...but not a single conviction in 5 years. Might as well add some more that he won't be convicted of either!I guess you don't know what "investigated" means or what "being tried for" means.
"Being tried for"? What has Trump been indicted for? You can't have a trial, you know, without an indictment.
I figured you would revert to being obtuse again. That is your frequent go-to when boxed in.
Two that come to mind are Fraud and Defamation.
Look everybody, he dodged the being investigated part as if that is just a big HO HUM. Well, to thinking people, being investigated by state and federal authorities is a VERY BIG DEAL.Well, at least to "thinking people" slavering to find something to convict him of.
To those "thinking people" that have looked back over the last 5 years at Democrats trying desperately to eliminate a political opponent and failing miserably, another attempt doesn't mean much. Too many cries of "WOLF!" that they could not prove; far too much time, effort and taxpayer money spent at the altar of "Destroy Trump before he wins again!".It is simply amazing how blind you are. I bet you even think Al Capone wasn't a murderer.
The blind talking to the blind, then. No rational person could possibly look at Democrat efforts to destroy their opponent, 100% of which have failed miserably, and applaud yet more efforts. But some of us refuse to consider that, refuse to actually look at what is being done to Trump in the name of politics (however much it is declared to be "investigating a criminal") and see anything but political ploys to destroy an opponent. Blind.
Nope, I am perfectly clear-eyed about most things - especially this. Your campaign against god-fearing Democrats and for terrorist Trump Republicans is startling.
Let's see - McConnell - "I will make Obama a one-term president"
Let's see - McConnell - "I will make Biden a one-term president"
I get your point.Actually, I do think you are clear-eyed...except about anything connected to Trump. Deflecting from Democrat actions to McConnell's words does nothing to change that.
Especially about Trump because one of the benefits dealing with him is he has no conscience and puts it all out there. He makes it obvious to anybody willing to keep their eyes open that it is all about him, that he has no scruples, no morals, no ethics. He will and has turn on anybody for any reason, real or imagined. He will stab you in the back without batting an eye. All of this is in the public record. Many, many books have been written about it now as well as opinions from many in the mental health field that (my terms) Trump is bat-shit nuts and that they don't need a one-on-one with him to determine that. All they need to do, they say, is just look at the public record.
I think we all know what the word investigation means. As we know what the word inditement means. Thus far Trump has not been indicted or charged with a crime. He has certainly been accused of many and slandered without merit. It would seem this should give you a hint to what you have been buying into.
So you ALSO don't think Al Capone committed murder I see.
Then I guess "being investigated" is just a nothing burger to you. It only means something if that investigation leads to an indictment because investigations happen for absolutely no reason at all.
Particularly in the case of Trump that is correct. Being investigated means nothing given the myriad of claims and "investigations" Democrats have done in a desperate attempt to remove him from the political stage.
Given that only an indictment means anything at all, and even that is minor given that a sympathetic, liberal judge can always be found. How about an actual conviction, from a jury of his peers?Remember, you said that, I didn't. I guess DA's around the country ought to stop investigating anything had just jump to indictments, lol.
I see Wilderness couldn't respond to that.
Investigations are fine. Assumptions of guilt because of an investigation are not. Something that appears to be beyond your understanding as any investigation of Trump, in your mind, automatically indicates guilt.
You would think that after years of watching Democrats "investigate" Trump, without a single conviction, you would learn that lesson, but you haven't.Are you talking to yourself? It would appear you are.
Ahhh... when the people running the CIA, NSA, FBI are found to be sympathetic and supportive of Clinton.
When they themselves are found to be complicit in covering up or fabricating or falsifying evidence.
When it is proven that the Clinton campaign and the DNC and those in the Obama Administration.
When it was a coordinated effort by the power brokers and corrupt cronies within Congress to create a false narrative intent on impeachment and undermining anyone who would support Trump (IE - Flynn).
When you realize that the MSM from the NY Times to CNN created and or supported false narrative after fabricated accusation regarding Russian collusion and conspiracy.
What difference does it make what they find Trump "guilty" of... when all evidence could be false, when those judging him are the most criminal and corrupt elements within our government?I stopped responding to Ken on another forum because of ridiculous dribble like this. I'll do the same here. He adds nothing to the discussion and takes a lot away from it.
When the truth becomes too burdensome to the fabricated stories people choose to believe... or when the truth doesn't fit one's political agendas...
I'm not sure which one fits...ECO, you always stop responding when you can't dispute a fact or a well-found opinion. This gesture makes it hard to converse. Ken takes nothing away, he just adds views that make you uncomfortable. His comment, the one you call "dribble" was thought-provoking. Gives a view that really made me stop and think, take note...
No, that is what you do, which is why I have to repeat some questions to you.
In Ken's case, he is SO off the wall with his other worldly version of history and his obviously deeply in-grained anti-Americanism, it is impossible to commutate with him intelligently. He is so far over the line in spewing Russian propaganda that I seriously think he might be part of Russian intelligence.
The comment to which you refer is pure Russian propaganda, straight out of Putin's playbook. I am sorry you can't see that for I think you are in favor of America, misguided perhaps, but still a real American.
If you compare Ken's defense of Putin's aggression with what Putin, Lavrov, and the like say, you can't tell the two apart. Hell, they sometimes us the same phrasing. In other words, if you believe Ken, then you must believe what Putin is telling you. If you think Putin is lying, then you must think Ken is doing the same.
Related Discussions
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 339
15 People!! close to Trump in contact with Russians. No Conspiracy???
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Over 15, close or very close associates of Donald Trump or his campaign have had contacts with Russia and Russian spies. How can this not be a conspiracy that Trump didn't know about??- Flynn - National Security Advisor (pleaded guilty)- Sessions - Former Attorney General (fired by Trump for...
- 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...
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 6 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 19
Has Trump already lost the election in 2020?
by Stevennix2001 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...
- 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...