This better be good!?!
I don't rely on Wikipedia for political issues. I like it for historical context as there are reliable timelines from my experience with references. I also like it for statistical information especially since the source is always given if I have doubts. Plus, many times the data is sortable whereas other sources are not. Another reason why I like it it saves me time and effort in finding sources for researching a topic of interest as they are given for the subject of the article most with links.
Congratulations for your edits on Wiki. But I felt sorry for Ashili. May her soul rest in peace.
This entire thread is degenerating into total rubbish.
You know, I could not help but to notice how all of the sudden Wikipedia is criticized as a reference source. Do you believe the same about Encyclopedia Brittanica? I think that it is a rather tiresome ploy from the encephalitic right winger, whatever that stuff is that passes for gray matter between their ears, to dismiss any authoritative sources contrary to what they believe but can never prove.
But again, you conservatives always say that the colleges and universities are leftist, Marxist or what have you. You find academia, the pursuit of knowledge and intellectualism as an affront to right wing ideas and concepts, of course you do. It is natural that they would be. That is your prime complaint, isn't it?
So, if "higher education" is leftist, where must lower education belong?
You can constantly evade any reputable source to evade the truth, but it is only going to get you so far.
Texas, with an infestation of rightwing legislators, prefer to have truck drivers and hash slingers write your history text books for public schools over degreed professionals in the field.
As Rightwingers, you remain an incorrigible bunch.Cred
Are you comparing the Encyclopedia Brittanica to Wikipedia? Can the Encyclopedia Brittanica be easily edited by visitors?
I certainly did make mention some authors protect their articles by not allowing editing, but many don't. So, nothing to do with evading truth, only making sure the site provides truth consistently.
Not sure what the problem is? I think it is obvious that we all are individuals, and it should be obvious we all have the right to choose sources as we see fit.
For me, I gave a very logical reason why I don't find Wiki "the greatest source".
So, please, why do you find it on Pare with Encyclopedia Brittanica?
And your scolding as to "rightwingers" as being incorrigible. Really, I can only hear your side getting bent out of shape.
I need to laugh at all of this because I chose to say a website was one I felt was not that great...
https://blog.reputationx.com/is-wikiped … yclopedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia … ble_source
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long … 13446.htmlSharlee: Your first link is a blog. The second one states this is not Wikipedia policy and I think it is copied from the first one you gave me.. At the bottom of third one is what I have been trying to say, since I posted it for the first time. Here it is.
The general message with Wikipedia is that here, on the face of it, is what we know. But it’s up to you to click on those links and citations and decide whether the information comes from sources you ultimately trust and are happy with. Wikipedia shouldn’t be anyone’s final stop when it comes to seeking knowledge, but rather the gateway to us being able to make up our own minds.I can't spend any more time on this. You just do not seem to understand what I have shared. The articles were to address Cred's comments. The links just offer several links with different Views of Wiki, not mine but others' views.
My links were meant to give other views of Wiki, some that are positive, and a few that offer some cons.
It is just that conservatives always leave me with the distinct impression that any and all scholarly based reference sources are to be dismissed due to a fundamental leftist bias that conservatives always complain about as found as naturally found in academia, as that would have to be a reason to discount anything contrary to their beliefs.
Here is an interesting experiment for you, have a look at the biography of Donald Trump published by the Brittanica, would conservatives accept this information from this reputable source or would they still take issue with it as "leftist"?
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donald-TrumpDid you read my comment? I asked a few simple questions, and you divert. I have had experience editing at Wiki, I did this due to being interested in helping to remove misinformation. I have admitted to using Wiki and made mentioned many authors protect their articles from free editing. I even provided you with good sources that give pros and cons... Why the chip on your shoulder?
The context of your comment regarding Encyclopedia Brittanica gave me the idea you feel both are on par. I would disagree there. Wiki has its place and does certainly have some wonderful writers. But some not so much.
Hey, I give up -- don't be put off if I don't respond to your comments. I am at this point picking wisely to what I will respond to. All I get from some here are diversions, and or snarky BS. Have a nice weekend.I did read your comments, you said that Wikipedia was suspect because anyone could edit the material. I am asking you about the same kinds of information found about a controversial figure in Brittanica would you assign it credibility?
No, it is may not be on par with Encyclopedia Brittanica, but will you accept this source as authoritative?
So,don't give up, it is a simple question. No chip on my shoulders, just trying to nail conservative ideas and thought down and would like to think that it is all not wishy-washy....I will be honest I have no knowledge about a controversial figure in Brittania. Have always thought they were a good site for info.
I regret sharing my thoughts, about Wiki. I came to them rightfully as an editor. I think they have a great idea, and that most don't abuse the edit button.
I find it so odd that no one addresses my second reason for not wanting to read the article PP offered. Most dwell on my simple words "I don't find them a great source". CurriousWiki does have a great idea, regardless of the fact they are not infallible, as long as humans create and edit reference materials there remains the possibility of bias.
I just wanted to see if conservatives would take issue with the facts as presented by Brittanica.
I will see what the issue the issue is in regard to the article.
Wikipedia can only confirm something found in a more reliable source. It's good for general information when you don't know where to start. It is not the Be All End All because of the nature of what it is - a community source.
Thank you. I do use Wiki here and there, I actually joined as an editor, which I have not done for a time now.
Kathleen: That's what I was using the wikipedia article for. It was to be used as a platform for readers to argue for or against the statements and citations, but if no one is willing to read it, then it serves no purpose.
Wikipedia's definition of itself: "Wikipedia has been praised for its enablement of the democratization of knowledge, extent of coverage, unique structure, culture, and reduced degree of commercial bias. It has been criticized for exhibiting systemic bias, particularly gender bias against women and ideological bias.[8][9] While the reliability of Wikipedia was frequently criticized in the 2000s, it has improved over time, receiving greater praise in the late 2010s and early 2020s,[3][8][10][note 4] having become an important fact-checking site.[11][12] It has been censored by world governments, ranging from specific pages to the entire site.[13][14] Articles on breaking news are often accessed as a source of frequently updated information about those events.["
We think they are stubborn or ignorant. They're cornered.
Who are you talking about; what's with all of these insults?
Is this insult directed at me or any one particular person? Maybe the three conservative women contributing to this discussion?
If you have such a problem and we don't measure up to your standards, simply move along.
Good grief!
If it is about something else entirely, my apologies. It has been a loooong day and I am not going to go back and read everything which brought us to...whatever this is.Really, have you followed this thread? I simply have no interest in dishing the dirt on a dead woman. Sorry about that. This has nothing to do with being stubborn, this has to do with my values.
"We Think" Really, and you have the right to judge? Cornered? For practicing my values... Keeping to one's values can at times appear stubborn because when one truely has them they as a rule stand by them. I did not read that article because I am not in support of kicking dirt on a grave. MY values stop me.
And is it fair for you to refer to anyone here as ignorant? This kind of comment was really uncalled for.
Just an observation. "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."
Shralee: Nice trick, but it didn't work. You selected one sentence, but it was all there and in context. I'm not going back over it, but you are like a slight of hand magician. You may get Trumpers to believe you, but you just played a game of now you see it now you don't.
What an excuse, "He wanted to talk one on one with all who shared his support." No, he wanted the crowd and Pence to do his dirty work. You want to talk about context, just watch what Guilianni told the crowd just to introduce Trump.
Trumpers on this forum remind of parents having an unruly child and being brought before the school principal for starting a fire in a trash can. "Oh, he lit the fire, because he was learning about combustion from his science teacher."
https://www.politico.com/video/2021/02/ … bat-122543
And don't tell me we are just talking about Trump. It is the context of Jan.6 and Guiliani warming up the crowd for Trump with "lets have trial by combat."I was just trying to make a point, did you note my feeling about the speech in general? I feel you select bits and pieces of the context of my posts. This is the point I was trying to point out regarding your thought that Trump was hell-bent on sending a mob to the Capitol. His words although very hyperbolic did not convey to me the same thing as they did to you. I listened and read the speech in its entirety. I did not look for -- I got you sentences.
Again we think very differently. It seems almost silly to converse.
"Please concentrate" Look at everything Trump has done - nor been accused of - but done. Stop with the excuses and "Please concentrate".
Other forum discussion, apparently, closed to comments. ??
Had to bring my comment here:
I call it as I see it Savvy, I know no other way?
Speaking of which, HP editors aren't loving my latest article. I should say loving it even less than usual....lol
We press on.Special counsel adds third defendant in classified docs case
The special counsel has added a third defendant in the classified documents case, Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker from Mar-a-Lago, according to a Thursday filing.
The worker, Carlos De Oliveira, who is the head of maintenance at the property and also once parked cars there, was charged with conspiracy to obstruct efforts to retrieve the documents. He was joined to a pre-existing indictment filed in Florida last month accusing Mr. Trump and the aide, Walt Nauta, of a conspiracy to obstruct the government’s repeated attempts to retrieve the material.
Mr. De Oliveira was caught on a surveillance camera moving boxes into a storage room at Mar-a-Lago at a crucial moment of the investigation: in the days between the issuance of a grand jury subpoena demanding all remaining classified material in Mr. Trump’s possession and a visit by federal prosecutors to see Mr. Trump’s lawyers and enforce the subpoena.
Phone records show that Mr. De Oliveira also called an information technology worker at Mar-a-Lago last summer. The call caught the government’s attention because it was placed shortly after prosecutors issued a subpoena to Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, demanding the footage from the surveillance camera near the storage room.
The footage was sought in order to have a clearer sense of movements in and out of the storage area. But there were gaps in some of the footage, a person familiar with the matter said, and prosecutors had scrutinized whether someone deliberately paused recording or whether there were technological issues at play.Yikes!
Trump Faces Major New Charges in Documents Case
The office of the special counsel accused the former president of seeking to delete security camera footage at Mar-a-Lago.
Federal prosecutors on Thursday added major accusations to an indictment charging former President Donald J. Trump with mishandling classified documents after he left office, saying he told a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago that he wanted security camera footage there to be deleted.
The new accusations were revealed in a superseding indictment that named the maintenance worker, Carlos De Oliveira, as a new defendant in the case.
The revised indictment also added three serious charges against Mr. Trump — attempting to “alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal evidence”; inducing someone else to do so; and a new count, the 32nd, under the Espionage Act stemming from a classified national security document he showed to visitors at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.
The updated indictment said that in late June of last year, Mr. De Oliveira went to see Mr. Taveras — who is identified only as Trump Employee 4 — and told him that “‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted,” referring to the computer server holding the security footage.
“What are we going to do?” the indictment quoted Mr. De Oliveira as saying, after Mr. Taveras objected and said he would not know how and did not think he had the right to do so.Island:
It sounds like the Nixon Tapes all over again, deleting incriminating recordings on the tapes. Nixon admitted guilt. Trump will never admit guilt to anything. It is part of his MO that he learned from Roy Cohn who was his mentor lawyer. Cohn was one of Joseph McCarthy's lawyers in the 50's who accused notable people of being communists, when in fact it was proven they weren't..I agree, he wont admit it. Especially since he has such a large group of willfully blind followers at his command.
I see "willful and blind followers" alright, but they aren't Trump supporters.
"Lock her up, lock her up!!"
On May 23,2022, TRUMP met with Trump Attomey 1 and Trump Attomey 2 at “The Mar-a-Lago Club to discuss the response to the May 11 Subpoena.
Trump Attorney 1 and “Trump Attomey 2 told TRUMP that they needed to search for documents that would be responsive to the subpoena and provide a certification that there had been compliance with the subpoena. TRUMP, in sum and substance, made the following statements. among others, as memorialized by Trump Attomey 1:
"I don't want anybody looking, I don't want anybody looking through my boxes, really don't. I don't want you looking through my boxes...
Well what if we. what happens if we just don’t respond at all or don’t play ball with them?...
Wouldn't it be better if we just oldthem we don't have anything here?...
Well look isn't it better if there are no documents?"
While meeting with Trump Atomey 1 and Trump Atomey 2 on May 23, TRUMP, in sum and substance, told the following story, as memorialized by Trump Attomey 1:
"[Attorney], he was great, he did a great job. You know what? He said, he said that it ~ that it was him. That he was the one who deleted all of her emails, the 30,000 emails, because they basically dealt with her scheduling and her going to the gym and her having beauty appointments. And he was greal. And he, so she didn’t get in any trouble because he said that he was the one who deleted them."
"Lock her... Lock him up?!"Okay!?!
Have a cocktail and a pleasant weekend.
Former Trump administration lawyer on Mar-a-Lago investigation: ‘The evidence is so overwhelming’
Federal prosecutors’ superseding indictment against former President Trump in his classified documents case Thursday has brought to light several new charges and revelations.
Trump now faces a total of 40 criminal counts in the case — three more than he did previously — after prosecutors added allegations that Trump pushed to delete surveillance footage at Mar-a-Lago and willfully retained an additional sensitive document.
Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb said there is overwhelming evidence in the classified documents case against former President Trump following the announcement of new charges from the Justice Department.
Cobb, a lawyer who served under the Trump administration, claimed the superseding indictment unveiled Thursday by federal prosecutors will “last an antiquity.”
“I think this original indictment was engineered to last 1,000 years and now this superseeding indictment will last an antiquity,” Cobb said. “This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming.”
“This is Trump not just going behind the back of the prosecutors, this is Trump going behind the back of his own lawyers, and dealing with two people who were extremely loyal to him,” he added.
READ Superseding Indictment:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … ra-7272354Of course it is "overwhelming" and will continue to be more sensationalized, with each and every day.
You may want to start your own discussion, because there's going to be fireworks (a dead body perhaps?!) if that's what it takes!
The corrupted D.C. swamp needs Biden to Lord over (propped up, but whatever) the swamp! They'll do all they must do to keep him, protect him and his family, including covering up the mounds of dirt on them!
Which are getting harder and harder to hide.
And so, Trump must be stopped, one way or the other!
P.S. these are my words, I form my own opinions.AB, doesn't anything ever bother you?
You can't believe that all of the charges and accusations against Trump are ALL completely politically motivated, do you?
You can't have a man accused and or indicted over so many issues as being eligible to be President of the United States, the very epitome and example of the rule of law and its application.
Biden Jr. may well have his own issues, then let him be indicted and prosecuted in the manner prescribed by law. But otherwise, he is innocent until proven guilty like everyone else. Also, Biden Jr. Is not Joe Biden."You can't believe that all of the charges and accusations against Trump are ALL completely politically motivated, do you?"
I ask the same of Joe Biden.. we all well know that Congress is working on connecting Joe Biden to crimes that they feel his son and he committed.
More to come next week about what Hunter's partner will give a deposition, and plenty has leaked on him claiming Joe Biden was in on Hunter's deal with Ukraine.
I will stick with innocent until proven guilty. Trump will have the opportunity to present his side in court. Biden may be impeached over his pay-for-play with foreign adversaries."You well know that Congress is working on connecting Joe Biden to crimes that they feel his son and he was in on."
Perhaps, Sharlee
True, but has there been an indictment of Joe Jr.? Working on and have substantial proof are two different things. On the other hand, the fact that Trump has been officially indicted is, in comparison, far more damning than just hearsay or (working on) gathering evidence. I agree to follow the evidence where ever it leads.
Trump can present his side in court, but for his sake, it is as the OP states, "it had better be good".Yes, Hunter is in hot water. He was sloppy and left a trail of over 150 flagged bank documents for the IRA to did through, and come up with felonies --- which they did, and claimed they were impeded from completing their job.
Thankfully the judge put the breaks on his get out of jail free, and all is being revisited.
Trump has been indicted, he will have his day in court.
Joe, well looks like Congress will have no choice but to impeach him over the lies he has been telling.
"Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley argued Friday it is Congress' obligation to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Biden after he "clearly lied" to Americans about his involvement in his son Hunter's business deals. The GWU law professor told "The Faulkner Focus" Friday that questions surrounding potential bribery "cannot go unanswered."
JONATHAN TURLEY: We often talk about the powers of Congress and not its obligations. What is the House supposed to do? You know, you have a president who has clearly lied, lied for years, lied to the American people, lied through his representatives at the White House during his presidency. He obviously did know about these deals. He had involvement with some of these meetings. There was money that went to China. And then you've got IRS agents saying that the fix was in, that this case was actively managed to avoid serious charges for the president's son. You have millions of dollars moving through a labyrinth of accounts. You have a trusted source saying that there was a bribery allegation. The crime that is the second one mentioned in the impeachment clause. So what are you supposed to do about that? And the answer is you have to investigate. And an impeachment inquiry gives the House that ability. It doesn't mean they're going to impeach. It means they're taking the responsibility seriously no matter what the administration may want out of this. The one thing the House cannot allow is for these questions to go unanswered. "
https://www.foxnews.com/media/congress- … han-turleyTrue, but the proof is in the pudding, how am I to believe that this is not a GOP version of a "witch hunt"?
I have to insist on irrefutable evidence as to Biden wrongdoing, as I don't trust a Republican controlled House of Representatives, we are going to have to do much better than their mere partisan machinations.Did you listen to the IRS whistleblowers? They investigated Hunter's taxes, they found felonies and evidence of clear tax crimes. Now Joe is a different story, there is as of yet no real firsthand evidence that he was involved with his son's business dealings. This is the truth I see.
"True, but the proof is in the pudding, how am I to believe that this is not a GOP version of a "witch hunt"?"
Did you buy into the Steele dossier? Many did. It was proven to be truthful, in fact, much was proven to be untrue.
In my view, both Trump impeachments were clearly witchhunts.The IRS agents obviously felt the evidence they uncovered "supported felony and misdemeanor tax charges" In the end their feelings don't impact prosecutorial decisions. It was not ultimately their decision to make as they are not lawyers.
Off subject a bit Shar, but have you noticed how all (or maybe it's just one with multiple personalities) of the 'Here Today, Gone Tomorrow' commentators, are left of center? Odd!!
Yes, I find it odd... It would seem that the moderator has his work set out for him. Not sure if this is a bot or a person. Bots can really blend in. It also seems odd that a bot would hook itself to a forum that gets so little traffic. It seems odd anyone would be so determined to want to go to the trouble to keep coming back -- again due to so few people posting here.
I have no issues with a bot or anyone else that want to participate and share ideas within this forum.
Sharlee… It is not particularly difficult to determine who has been banned permanently, even as they continue to revisit this site under other names.
Perhaps it is best to argue our points with those who have been here longer, with the exception of race baiters, whose minds are fixed.
The prosecutorial decisions were under the sole discretion of Attorney Weiss. He was handpicked by Trump and began this investigation under the Trump administration in 2018. Biden left him in place and Garland gave him complete authority over the case.
Maybe it serves them better having a never-ending political tool...?
"Did you listen to the IRS whistleblowers? They investigated Hunter's taxes, they found felonies and evidence of clear tax crimes. Now Joe is a different story, there is as of yet no real firsthand evidence that he was involved with his son's business dealings. This is the truth I see."
--------
That is not far off of the mark from where we are right now as I have seen this from legitimate journalism sources. So, the President is not involved and it has yet to be proven that he was involved in the affairs of his son.
We can debate all day about the efficacy of the impeachments. But, I do know that no other President in the history of the office has had this many charges and allegations associated with his public presence. What is the explanation for that?I think we need courts to unravel all that surrounds Trump at this point. As I shared, I think we saw two bogus impeachments, and I never bought into Russia Russia Russia stuff. The Document indictment, well I will wait to hear both sides.
Perhaps, but the consistant appearance of impropriety from the man who wishes to be king is a concern, in of itself.
I think Joe Biden has forgotten any grandiose delusions he may have once had about becoming king!
"Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley argued Friday it is Congress' obligation to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Biden after he "clearly lied" to Americans about his involvement in his son Hunter's business deals.
Quite a statement from this man. Really just uncorroborated allegations.
ab: You have a right to your opinion, but facts are facts. They are not opinions. Fact, Trump instigated Jan. 6, Fact, Trump covered up the documents. Fact, Biden and his son have not been indicted. Fact, that GOP witch hunt has been going on for seven years.
"Fact, Trump instigated Jan. 6, Fact, Trump covered up the documents. Fact, Biden and his son have not been indicted. Fact, that GOP witch hunt has been going on for seven years."
None of these accusations have been proven in a court of law. You have listed accusations.
I just love that about you, you share your view, and your view is always very common sense, and interesting. You take your time to share... Not a one-sentence kind of gal.
A key witness in the Trump classified docs case changed his testimony after switching lawyers, special counsel says
The man identified as "Trump Employee 4" had been represented by Stanley Woodward, who was being paid by the former president's Save America PAC.
A key witness against former President Donald Trump and his two co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago documents case recanted previous false testimony and provided new information implicating the defendants after he switched lawyers, special counsel Jack Smith’s office said in a new court filing.
Yuscil Taveras, the director of information technology at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's club in Palm Beach, Florida, changed his testimony last month about efforts to delete security camera video at the club after he changed from a lawyer paid for by Trump’s Save America PAC to a public defender, Tuesday's filing says.
The revised testimony led to last month's superseding indictment against Trump and his two co-defendants.
Taveras decided to change lawyers after he learned he was being investigated on suspicion of having made false statements in his previous grand jury testimony in Washington, D.C., the court filing says.
“Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump Employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, [Carlos] De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage, as set forth in the superseding indictment,” the filing says.
The filing identifies Taveras as “Trump Employee 4.” NBC News previously reported that Taveras is Employee No. 4.
Taveras’ former lawyer is Stanley Woodward, who also represents Trump’s co-defendant Walt Nauta and a variety of other Trump world figures.
"On July 5, 2023, Trump Employee 4 informed Chief Judge Boasberg that he no longer wished to be represented by Mr. Woodward and that, going forward, he wished to be represented by the First Assistant Federal Defender," the filing said. "Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump Employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … rcna101308The Washington Post today, October 23, 2023
By Marc A. Thiessen
Columnist
|
"As Donald Trump appears in court to face his 91st felony charge since April (with a possible 700 years in prison!), many Republicans correctly believe he is in the crosshairs of a deeply politicized justice system — one that has bent over backward to protect the Biden family while using novel legal theories to target the former president.
But it is also clear that Trump bears much responsibility for his predicament. To see why, consider five disastrous choices Trump made over the past three years — mistakes that have given his enemies the pretext to go after him in court, while alienating swing voters and undermining his chances of winning back the presidency.
Mistake No. 1: Imagine how different things would be today if, after exhausting his legal challenges to the 2020 election, Trump had presided over a smooth transition. Imagine if, even without conceding he lost, he invited Joe Biden to the White House as Barack Obama had invited Trump, attended Biden’s inauguration and left office graciously — with a MacArthur-esque farewell address promising that he would return in four years’ time. There would have been no “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, no Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol and no second impeachment.
Mistake No. 2: Instead of contesting certified election results accepted by Georgia’s popular Republican governor, Brian Kemp, Trump should have focused his attention on turning out his loyal base in Georgia to save the GOP majority in the U.S. Senate by winning the two runoff elections. He could have left office with a major political victory under his belt and momentum toward a 2024 run — and would have been able to take credit for a GOP Senate reining in the Biden administration. Instead, his false fraud claims depressed GOP turnout, handed Senate control to the Democrats and enabled President Biden to ram through trillions in new spending with Democratic votes alone, which helped unleash the worst inflation in four decades.
Mistake No. 3: When it was discovered that he had taken highly classified materials to Mar-a-Lago, Trump could have cooperated and handed over the documents, rather than reportedly ordering aides to hide documents and delete security footage.
Mistake No. 4: Instead of spending the past three years railing against the “rigged election” (a claim that 70 percent of Americans reject), Trump should have focused on Biden’s failings in office. Trump should have contrasted Biden’s disastrous policies with his many successes, and reminded the record 56 percent of voters who told Gallup just before Election Day 2020 that they were better off under Trump than they had been four years earlier how good they had it when he was in office. Imagine if his message had been “Miss me yet?” instead of “I am your retribution.”
Mistake No. 5: Rather than saddling the GOP with midterm candidates whose main or only qualification was parroting his election denial, Trump could have backed electable candidates and used his $100 million-plus war chest to help Republicans take back the Senate and win an overwhelming House majority in 2022 — thus getting credit for propelling the GOP back into power on Capitol Hill.
If Trump had done these things, he would be facing no criminal charges, except perhaps the flimsy indictment brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. No serious Republicans would be challenging him for the GOP nomination. He would be raising and spending millions for attack ads against Democrats instead of using campaign funds to pay his mounting legal bills. And he would likely have a double-digit lead over Biden in the polls. Indeed, Biden would probably be the one facing serious primary challengers and calls to step aside for the good of the party. Amid the Democratic weakness and infighting, Trump could be cruising toward victory as the 47th president of the United States — possibly in a landslide.
Instead, Trump spent the past three years relentlessly promoting election lies, putting revenge ahead of victory at the polls, costing his party Senate control, alienating swing voters who will decide the next presidential election, and diverting millions of dollars away from beating Democrats and toward his legal defense. So, yes, Democrats are weaponizing the justice system against Trump. But Trump is clearly the author of his own misery.
Do we need to clean house in the Justice Department? Absolutely. But Republicans can’t do that if Biden wins a second term. Right now, 63 percent of Americans say they won’t vote for Trump in 2024, including a 53 percent majority who say they “definitely” won’t vote for him, an AP-NORC poll found last week. That would leave in charge at the Justice Department the same people who went after Trump while trying to give Hunter Biden a pass.
In other words, if GOP voters really want to rally around Trump, the best way to do so is to choose another nominee — someone who can beat Biden, pardon Trump and take on the administrative state.
If Republicans nominate Trump, he will likely lose — and go to jail."I am sure everyone here is familiar with the word and meaning of "principle".
It has always been significant in my life. I knew from an early age exactly what my Dad meant when he would use the word.
It wasn't thrown around, it wasn't overused, nor abused; it's above all of that.
On principle, people are gathering around Trump; on principle, they will vote for Trump.Just curious as to which principles would lead people to gather around and support someone who seems to have no moral compass?
Please keep in mind I am sharing my view.
I am pleased to share various perspectives highlighting the positive dimensions of Trump's principles that garnered support from people. Initially, it's important to note that some members of our society assess an individual's actions, not merely their words. Numerous supporters found merit in Trump's economic principles, particularly the implementation of tax cuts and deregulation, which they believed invigorated economic growth, lessened unemployment rates, and encouraged increased business investment. Supporters saw Trump's initiative to lower taxes as a caring gesture, demonstrating his concern for Americans.
Additionally, Trump's prioritization of American interests in international relations resonated deeply with his backers. His skepticism toward specific international agreements and organizations was seen as an expression of his commitment to American sovereignty and security. While the 'Make America First' approach sparked controversy, supporters viewed Trump's willingness to champion this belief during a challenging period in history as an example of his positive moral stance.
Trump's stance on immigration found favor among those who advocated for stricter border controls and heightened national security. Supporters interpreted his efforts to curtail illegal immigration as safeguarding the nation against human trafficking, terrorism, drug-related crises, and the strain on resources caused by unauthorized entry. Many Trump supporters perceived his unrelenting battle against these issues as a demonstration of his concern for the safety of American citizens and the preservation of national sovereignty.
Moreover, Trump's push for deregulation aligned with the principle of limiting government intervention in the economy. Supporters saw this as an avenue for bolstering individual and business freedom. They appreciated that Trump recognized and addressed their needs and desires, a testament to his consideration for their concerns.
Supporters valued Trump's commitment to appointing conservative judges to federal courts, including the Supreme Court. This appointment strategy was viewed as a means to shape the judicial system in alignment with specific social and political values. Trump's adherence to this commitment was seen as a reflection of his moral compass.
During the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump swiftly took action, countering harsh rhetoric from Democrats and implementing travel bans from China. He established 'Operation Warp Speed,' resulting in the development of vaccines for Americans and much of the world. In times of national tragedy, Trump offered condolences and prayers, displaying his empathy and responsiveness to people's needs.
Trump's supporters deeply considered and appreciated his actions rather than focusing solely on unfulfilled promises. They acknowledge his dedication to the American people and the sincerity behind it.Thank you, I feel it makes sense to millions of Americans, this is what many other citizens do not understand. Many look at his deeds, and his willingness to fight for many American citizen's values. To fight no matter what. With a country so split, it is odd that the other half does not realize so many do support Trump --- no matter what, his deeds stand out to those who see them very clearly.
And on "principle" they'll whine again when he loses... again?
It's a pity. But there are some truth in what you say. For Trump to go to jail is terrible. What president of America has ever land in prison?
Whoa! The Washington Post actually said something negative about Joe Biden? Interesting.
Which of your own principles lead you to support Trump? I would say that integrity and honesty are important principles.
I'm an outsider. What American president have ever land in jail? Why can't Americans answer the question? But instead trying to make Trump, an example?
What American president ever refused to leave office? Which one tried to overturn a free and fair election and defy the will of the voters? If we don't make an example of the person that tries this, then we have no democracy.
Well, he (Trump) is an outsider too!!
The Washington D.C. swamp, aka: corrupted establishment, couldn't have him there, getting things done for the American people! They prefer conflict, dragging things out, gridlock, etc., it is more profitable - for them!!Trump is not an outsider. He is part of the 1%. He is not like you or me. He is a multimillionaire.
If you aren't a part of the D.C. Swamp, you are an outsider. If you are an outsider, working to drain the swamp, you are hated, despised and must be eliminated.
I said what I meant, I meant what I said.I think that Businessman have more power than politicians nowadays. As they have the money. Rupert Murdoch, Mark Zukerberg, Elon Musk. They have more power than many politicians to make or break opinions.
Basically it is the super rich 1% against us the 99%.
When push comes to shove, that is what it is.
Trumpism is a movement based on a standard of cultural resentment and fear, having little to do with actual economics. Otherwise, his support would be seen over a far wider and diverse sections of the American electorate.
That is the deception that conservatives want most everyone to buy into. How does a billionaire do anything less than to promote his own and the interests of his class while pretending to relate to the common man by eating at McDonalds?Perhaps Trump's smartest move ever was not to eat at McDonalds ;-)
Trumpism is a branch of fascism.
MAGA is longing for the lost great America - The same as the 3rd Reich idea that longs after the great empire Germany (1st and 2nd Reich) supposedly once was.
Trumpism is always playing for the underdog and at the same time feeling superior. Same with fascism. Apparently the Jews were a threat to the superior Arian race and at the same time, they were less than animals.
Trumpism is the cult of a leader.
...
Umberto Eco explains perfectly the description of fascism :
(from his book Ur Fascism published 1995)
The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Sounds familiar?Yes, it is familiar
The lost, great America has always been an illusion. The idea is merely a figment of the imagination for most Trumpers, "great" depends upon your point of view.
Cult of tradition Qanon
Rejection of modernism: resist almost universal scientific acceptance of climate change, women forced to carry any fertilized egg to term.
Thinking not allowed
People obsessed of a single concept whether it can stand under scrutiny or not.
Pacifism is the Enemy. Gotta own the libs....
Your education is useful only to the point of inculcating their truths instead the idea of open inquiry.
Machismo is a form of cowardice, living without intolerance and bullying is the real path to the future, but again if you live for the past......they try to intimidate with firearms in an otherwise peaceful mileau where the exchange of ideas are warranted, not bullets. They cling to twentieth century ideas regarding the Cold War and gunboat diplomacy, where in the modern world, power and influence between nations are much more sophisticated.
I continue to ask why Trump and Trumpism is only supported by the majority of white voters, not to pull the race card, but I never did get an answer to that. Are Anglos the only group that seem to believe that the current system needs to be reformed via Trumpism? It appears so.
Non white people do not necessarily has a nostalgic longing for a past as that Trumpers fawn for. What is it in that past that I would find desirable, a status quo that I would like to see returned to?
"How does a billionaire do anything less than to promote his own and the interests of his class while pretending to relate to the common man by eating at McDonalds?"
Perhaps the bigger question is how one with only a few hundred thousand comes out of office a multi-millionaire? One already has all he could need; the other is greedy for more.Trump went bankrupt eight times. That means he stiffed the banks eight times and walked away clean. His Trump University was a scam and he ended up settling with the students by paying out 25 million.
Trump has created a cult-like base that he needs in order to get the votes. Other than that, he could care less about them. His rallies are nothing more than entertainment for his cult.
He is a master-con artist who suffers from acute narcissism. He doesn't even have the capacity to accept that he lost an election. He has no remorse for all the people he has affected by trying to overturn an election. he can't accept losing. He creates problems he then solves and his people believe him.
An example is Operation Warp Speed. He ignored covid when it first appeared and said it was like a flu. Thousand died as a result of that decision. Then months later he comes up with OWS and they think he solved the problem.
His tax break has cost billions of dollars over a ten year period, but people think he created a great economy. He made it sound like we made 32 billion from his tariffs to China. When in fact it cost our importers 32 billion.
In my view, Trump is the greedy one. He has the money daddy gave him and he uses it to his settle law suits and pay for his lawyers. He was supposed to pay Giuliani 2K per day, but he hasn't paid him at a cent.They choose to ignore that. My God their heads are really spinning.
Billionaires don't get rich by being satisfied at having all they need, they become billionaires by grubbing for just that much more.
ab: Yep, you got that right and it is Trump and company.
"Make America Great" policies, as a term, are often associated with the political rhetoric of Donald Trump during his presidency. While opinions on these policies vary widely, according to the individual. Here are my own thoughts on MAGA --
Supporters appreciate that policies focused on deregulation, tax cuts, and incentivizing domestic industries could stimulate economic growth and lead to increased job opportunities for Americans.
Advocate policies that emphasize protecting domestic industries by imposing tariffs or renegotiating trade deals, aiming to prevent the outsourcing of jobs and maintain a level playing field for American businesses, and American workers.
Supporters highlight efforts to promote domestic energy production and reduce reliance on foreign sources of energy, which could potentially enhance national security and reduce trade imbalances. Again all about America and Americans.
We support policies aimed at increasing defense spending and strengthening the military are seen by some as crucial for safeguarding national security interests and projecting strength on the global stage.
Supporters like to see the reduction of bureaucracy. Initiatives to streamline regulations and reduce bureaucratic hurdles are often praised for promoting business growth and innovation, potentially leading to increased efficiency and competitiveness.
Supporters often highlight the appointment of conservative judges to federal courts as a means of ensuring adherence to strict constitutional interpretation and protection of individual rights.
We are advocates of policies that emphasize stricter immigration enforcement as a way to protect job opportunities for American citizens and ensure national security.
Supporters very much appreciate policies aiming to simplify the tax code and reduce tax rates can be viewed as beneficial for both individuals and businesses, potentially encouraging investment and economic activity.
The promotion of American Culture and Identity is important to us. MAGA prioritizes policies that reinforce American values and identity and can foster a sense of unity and pride among citizens.
We Support plans to invest in infrastructure improvements, such as roads, bridges, and transportation systems, as a means of creating jobs and promoting long-term economic growth.
In my view, critics often raise concerns about potential negative consequences associated with MAGA policies. As one can see the policies are simply about making America better, a more equal playing field for Americans to thrive. Yes, the media has truely tried to villainize MAGA and add their own difenations. However, what I have laid out pretty much covers why we support MAGA. It is a very strong movement, and I doubt whether it will be pushed into a corner.
President Trump was delivering in some fashion on all of the above-mentioned. He worked on his promises, he did not just go about ignoring problems, and telling the public "All is great". When we can clearly feel all the problems at our doors.Ok, Sharlee, I am listening, that was a well laid out explanation.
I will question what is the Trumpers perspective on what is "better" and if Trump himself is really aligned with those objectives.
You can't blame the press for all the negativity associated with Trump, his policies or the Reublican party.In My View ---
The evidence lies within the historical record of President Trump's tenure. He boldly confronted challenges that significantly improved the lives of many Americans, even though not all were impacted positively. Rather than adhering to the status quo, he embarked on initiatives that garnered widespread approval among citizens. Those of us who stood behind him took careful notice of his remarkable achievements. Many of his promises were fulfilled, and he fervently pursued even those that were met with resistance, such as the common-sense approach of constructing the Wall.
His policy agenda carried a progressive undertone, yet he adeptly garnered support from the Republican base. From my perspective, his focus was on propelling America forward while simultaneously honoring the GOP's commitment to preserving cherished traditions and values.
He introduced forward-looking ideas that aimed to extend opportunities, safeguard individual freedoms, enhance educational prospects, and ensure safety from criminal threats, as well as garnering respect from other nations. Did he offer a comprehensive solution? He certainly presented a pathway for progress while respecting enduring values held dear by many Americans.
Challenging the notion that Trump lacked progressivism, his administration exhibited a careful balancing act. He energetically addressed trade imbalances, urged NATO member nations to fulfill financial commitments, and fostered the groundbreaking Abraham Accords. Additionally, his administration achieved remarkable strides in achieving energy independence and reducing taxes. The idea that "Trump supporters" long for a bygone era evokes a chuckle, as we rallied behind a leader determined to instigate transformative change. His commitment to "drain the swamp" was resolute and unwavering."The evidence lies within the historical record of President Trump's tenure."
I did elaborate on the specific, positive legislation signed by Biden , at this point. I've seen many posts on these forums relating to Trump's tenure and some even claiming he has been one of our best presidents.
This post in particular talks of his "remarkable achievements"
Would you or anyone else like to elaborate, in terms of specific legislation that was remarkable?
Off the top of my head I think we can look back and see some remarkable or at least substantial legislation during the terms of our various leaders.
Obama had the ACA, Reagan had the Economic Recovery Tax Act, Clinton had the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Johnson just had a slew, and so on.
I'm looking for actual legislation not just the fact that something positive may have been going on while he occupied the office of president. I'm not sure maybe someone can weigh in, is this a post hoc fallacy? Or a fallacy of mistaken cause? Because it seems to be applied to Trump very often.
This one may require a separate thread if anyone's interested. I think a thorough dissection of his tenure is in order since he is the Republican parties presumptive nominee.
Of course. One thing is to talk about and promise to build a big wall, etc. The other is to change the tax laws for the rich, which was the first thing Trump did when he was in office.
The talk is for the 99%, the action is for the 1%.
I was replaying to abwilliams who said that Trump was an outsider. But he is/was not.
He knew and spoke with a lot of politicians and jet-set before he started running for president. He was not an outsider.
Got it. You all believe that you...and Democrats in general, are standing on higher ground and hold the "moral compass".
We can go there, with a further discussion, I just can't go there in this moment in time."Got it. You all believe that you...and Democrats in general, are standing on higher ground and hold the "moral compass".
That's an assumption and not my belief at all. I've stated that the Republican Party has chosen to label itself the moral majority and is more often than not the one to claim the moral high ground on certain issues. I've only pointed out that at certain actions (such as the Clinton Lewinsky scandal) were roundly condemned at the time by conservatives but many have ignored the same sort of actions or immoral behavior from Trump. Moral inconsistency or just hypocrisy?
In my own view, I'm not sure a political party can actually have a moral compass but it's members certainly can.
When you take on the moniker of "moral majority", you certainly can expect some scrutiny.
For one example, it's really hard for people to see a group that will vote for someone that a jury has found liable of sexually abusing a woman (that state's version of rape when they cannot determine what the rapist used to penetrate the woman) as having any moral compass whatsoever.
"Kaplan wrote that the jury’s unanimous verdict was almost entirely in favor of Carroll, except that the jury concluded she had failed to prove that Trump raped her “within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law.” https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-t … ddda3ad10e
What are your feelings in regard to the many times Joe Biden has been accused of acting sexually inappropriately toward women and girls?
"Eight women have alleged that Biden either touched them inappropriately or violated their personal space in ways that made them uncomfortable.
One of those women, Tara Reade, alleges that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993. Biden has unequivocally denied assaulting or harassing Reade.
Biden has also been criticized for repeatedly commenting on the physical appearance of women on the campaign trail, and for refusing to explicitly apologize for his behavior."
Tara Reade alleged in April 2019 that Biden touched her in ways that made her feel uncomfortable while she worked in his Senate office in 1993. In March 2020, Reade alleged that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993
Lucy Flores alleged in March 2019 that Biden grasped her shoulders from behind and kissed the back of her head without her consent during a campaign event in 2014. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/politics … index.html
Sofie Karasek, a progressive organizer, was photographed holding hands and touching foreheads with Biden at the 2016 Academy Awards. Karasek said she felt Biden violated her personal space in that interaction.
Amy Stokes Lappos alleges Biden pulled her face close to him during a 2009 political fundraiser.
Caitlyn Caruso said that after she shared her story of sexual assault at a University of Nevada event in 2016, Biden hugged her "just a little bit too long" and put his hand on her thigh.
DJ Hill alleges Biden rested his hand on her shoulder and moved it down her back at a 2012 fundraising event in Minneapolis. Hill said the encounter made her "very uncomfortable."
Vail Kohnert-Yount, a former White House intern, said when she met Biden in 2013, he "put his hand on the back of my head and pressed his forehead to my forehead." Kohnert-Yount also said Biden called her a "pretty girl."
In June 2019, Biden told the brothers of a 13-year-old girl to "keep the guys away" from her at a campaign event.
https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-bid … ign-2019-6
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
After hugging awkwardly with Joe Biden, Eva Longoria took her hand off Joe Biden, why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj7SCw4gDd4I find your response to be typical in that you selectively take things from the judge while completely ignoring the more damning comments made. Here is the damning part you would never think to post in these forums:
“The finding that Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’” Kaplan wrote. The judge explained that New York’s legal definition of the term is “far narrower” than the word “rape” is understood in “common modern parlance.”
“Indeed,” he added, “as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
And then there was an attempt to try and make some extremely failed false equivalencies to an actual court finding of sexual abuse (rape) to justify those that still support a proven rapist.Valeant: As I said before, Trumpers are suffering from cognitive dissonance because they have invested so much emotional and political capital in Trump and company. They will even come up with false equivalences to justify supporting Trump. They are actually all part of Trump's cult. This is from Occupy Democrats. It's part satire, but also has many truths.
Donald Trump lied about the money that his father left him, lied about his bone spurs, his SATs, about graduating at the top of his class at Wharton, about his charity, his university, the value of his properties, about where his father was born, where Barack Obama was born, about helping at Ground Zero, about paying a porn star hush money, his wife being a genius, about the existence of Covid, about HAVING Covid, about voter fraud in the 2020 election, about his “perfect phone call” about January 6, and about the mountain of classified documents piled up in his bathroom.
He lies about being a family man, about being religious, about supporting the troops, and about putting “America first.”
He paints himself orange to look “healthy,” wears lifts in his shoes to look “taller”, and has a 14 step combover to look like he has a “full head” of hair.
The guy is a Russian nesting doll of lies.
But when you ask MAGA who they trust above all else - more than their friends, family, conservative media, religious leaders, more than their very own eyes and ears, they say that they trust Trump.
And that is how you know that it’s a cult.”I was also not surprised by the results of that poll that found conservatives have more faith in Trump than other trusted sources, including family and religious leaders. There are so many omissions of facts to make the cases they bring, and above we saw a pretty thinly veiled attempt at a false equivalency that three of us have now called out as ridiculous. All we can do is shake our heads at the logical fallacies the right uses to support someone proven liable of such a heinous crime.
I acknowledged Trump's verdict, and I in no way ignored the verdict --- I posted it at the top of my comment to indicate I recognized Trump's guilt. I see no reason to discuss Trump at this point, I certainly have been privy to the case and the verdict.
I also did not offer any personal view on the verdict, just kept the comment non -bias. In my view, we need not have made the comparison.
I asked a direct question and went to great lengths to post sources.
My question --- What are your feelings in regard to the many times Joe Biden has been accused of acting sexually inappropriately toward women and girls?“The finding that Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’” Kaplan wrote. The judge explained that New York’s legal definition of the term is “far narrower” than the word “rape” is understood in “common modern parlance."
What a bunch of leftist hogwash.
It wasn't rape but in her mind it was......so it is?!?!
What is a woman?
What is rape?
"Depends on what the meaning of "is", is!?!Is the act of a man penetrating a woman's vagina without her consent rape? If you can answer that question without stating it is 'leftist hogwash,' that'd be a great start.
Funny, I remember having this same conversation with you when you were convinced that Judge Kavanaugh was a rapist too!!
Funny the lengths you will go to deflect away from answering a simple question, including fabricating conversations that didn't happen.
Pretty sure it was you.
What else is there to answer? I don't believe E. Jean Caroll.Pretty sure? Sounds like your election fraud claims.
But a jury did after hearing her testimony and the testimony of a few others. Did you go look at what they testified to, or just make a determination based on what Trump told you to believe? Don't bother answering. We can guess.
"What are your feelings in regard to the many times Joe Biden has been accused of acting sexually inappropriately toward women and girls? "
"Accused is the key word here"So you are not willing to believe these women? Did you note that these women all were affiliated with the Democratic party?
Your opinion is noted.Or that proven in a court of law is different from accusations and makes this a false equivalency.
We've conceded that Biden has personal space issues with women and both candidates have had multiple allegations against them. But only one of those two candidates has been confirmed by a jury of his peers to have sexually abused a woman (something that would be considered as rape in other states). Do you have a jury finding that puts Biden on the same level as Trump as a rapist?
And the bigger question would be why the right is fine electing someone found liable of such charges?"And the bigger question would be why the right is fine electing someone found liable of such charges?"
Like I said, morality is just not the Republicans thing anymore.My bigger question would be why the one is fine electing someone found to be so frequently accused of multiple sexual inappropriateness. It is very factual that Biden has not been charged with the multiple accusations these women came forward with.
So please brush them under a rug ---Trump, has been accused of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, including non-consensual kissing or groping, by at least 25 women since the 1970s.
And we have the Carroll verdict.
Yet the party and the loyalists stand behind Trump. The same ones who want to dish up a daily sermon on the morality of a host of social issues.
Do you believe all the ones that accused Trump? Did that affected your vote? Would that affect your vote? I guess not.
Island: Do you see what Sharlee has done? She has taken us off the Trump track and put us on The What About Biden? track. Now we have to defend Biden instead of present someone who has been issued four very serious indictments.
Yup. False equivalence and fake outrage seems to be the Right strategy as of late.
How can we forget, "look here not there", huh?I take offense at your comment. I did not bring this subject into this thread ---- That would be Val... He added a comment that led to the subject (which he has every right to do)
You are quick to accuse, and at this point, I think you might want to read the thread and be aware of the conversation.
Please let me remind you, that you need not defend anyone. You have the choice to pass by a comment.
I will also remind you Biden is not off limits, this is an open political forum. Here is where the conversation in regard to sexual inappropriateness started. Please note I offered a source to the various accusations.
"VALEANT WROTE: permalink to conversation
For one example, it's really hard for people to see a group that will vote for someone that a jury has found liable of sexually abusing a woman (that state's version of rape when they cannot determine what the rapist used to penetrate the woman) as having any moral compass whatsoever.
Sharlee comments "Kaplan wrote that the jury’s unanimous verdict was almost entirely in favor of Carroll, except that the jury concluded she had failed to prove that Trump raped her “within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law.” https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-t … ddda3ad10e
What are your feelings in regard to the many times Joe Biden has been accused of acting sexually inappropriately toward women and girls?
"Eight women have alleged that Biden either touched them inappropriately or violated their personal space in ways that made them uncomfortable.
One of those women, Tara Reade, alleges that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993. Biden has unequivocally denied assaulting or harassing Reade.
Biden has also been criticized for repeatedly commenting on the physical appearance of women on the campaign trail, and for refusing to explicitly apologize for his behavior."
Tara Reade alleged in April 2019 that Biden touched her in ways that made her feel uncomfortable while she worked in his Senate office in 1993. In March 2020, Reade alleged that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993
Lucy Flores alleged in March 2019 that Biden grasped her shoulders from behind and kissed the back of her head without her consent during a campaign event in 2014. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/politics … index.html
Sofie Karasek, a progressive organizer, was photographed holding hands and touching foreheads with Biden at the 2016 Academy Awards. Karasek said she felt Biden violated her personal space in that interaction.
Amy Stokes Lappos alleges Biden pulled her face close to him during a 2009 political fundraiser.
Caitlyn Caruso said that after she shared her story of sexual assault at a University of Nevada event in 2016, Biden hugged her "just a little bit too long" and put his hand on her thigh.
DJ Hill alleges Biden rested his hand on her shoulder and moved it down her back at a 2012 fundraising event in Minneapolis. Hill said the encounter made her "very uncomfortable."
Vail Kohnert-Yount, a former White House intern, said when she met Biden in 2013, he "put his hand on the back of my head and pressed his forehead to my forehead." Kohnert-Yount also said Biden called her a "pretty girl."
In June 2019, Biden told the brothers of a 13-year-old girl to "keep the guys away" from her at a campaign event.
https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-bid … ign-2019-6
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
After hugging awkwardly with Joe Biden, Eva Longoria took her hand off Joe Biden, why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj7SCw4gDd4
Permalink to comment
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/356 … ost4304305
In my view --- you need not defend Biden in regard to this comment. In my view, there is no defense for these women's accusations.
You really should follow a thread before jumping in. Val and I shared our views, perhaps it's time to move back to the subject of the thread.
I do believe the accusations that have been levied at Trump. I don't feel women report sexual accusations without cause. Yes, it's possible, but I offer the benefit of the doubt.
No, it did not affect my vote in any respect given the choice of
candidates. I found both morally corrupt, one I knew her history due to being around for all of it.
We had two flawed people, I chose to vote for a completely wrecking
ball. One that surprised me, and I became very pleased with his job performance. His personal life became very secondary due to my feeling he was doing a great job.
So, I can assume you voted for Biden --- did you find the multiple accusations of his sexual inappropriateness a problem? The list was long, and all actually from women, he came in contact with via the Democratic party.
In 2024 my vote will go to a Republican, due to being so very Democratic with the agenda they offer. So, no the sexual accusations once again will by no means enter my choice... You see I believe women when they step up and offer any form of sexual misconduct.
At this point, it would seem we will have two men who have been accused of sexual misconduct. I also don't weigh the abuse, when it comes to sexual inappropriateness.
I have never defended Trump or Biden when it comes to all the varied sexual accusations. NeverSo you believed them but did not care and still dont care. ok. Noted.
And no, I didnt vote for Biden. And I dont think he should be the candidate.
But you are comparing apples and oranges. One is a proved sexual abuser and you still like him enough to vote for him."But you are comparing apples and oranges. One is a proven sexual abuser and you still like him enough to vote for him."
I see your point, just don't agree with it. Just because none of these women pushed their complaints any further than the media, does not mean they should not be believed, does it?
"So you believed them but did not care and still dont care. ok. Noted."
Yes, my comment was very clear, and I shared my reason.
"No, it did not affect my vote in any respect given the choice of
candidates. I found both morally corrupt, one I knew her history due to being around for all of it.
We had two flawed people, I chose to vote for a completely wrecking
ball in 2016. One that surprised me, and I became very pleased with his job performance. His personal life became very secondary due to my feeling he was doing a great job. " I voted again for him in 2020.
(My apologies for being overly presumptuous in regard to thinking you voted for Biden.)I keep seeing, here on HP, that "Trump is a proven sexual abuser". Proven by whom?
Where are his accusers?
Clinton's accusers, who were actually assaulted and at least one, was raped (she is sure about that, btw) by him...
never disappeared back into the woodwork!!!
They have never stopped asking to be heard and to be believed!!!I was careful to use the words accusations of sexual misconduct. He has been accused multiple times of sexual misconduct. He recently lost a civil case with Jean Caroll the jury found him guilty of sexual abuse and definition. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/09 … al-verdict
List of allegations https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-tr … d=51956410Yes, I see who is referring to him as a "proven sexual abuser." The usual suspects.
MAGAs will keep ignoring it, though.
Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.
He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
The New York Penal Law requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”
Kaplan also flatly rejected the Trump team’s suggestion that the conduct Trump was found liable for might have been as limited as groping of the breasts.
The reason? Trump was not accused of that, so the only alleged offense that would have qualified as “sexual abuse” was forced digital penetration. Beyond that, Trump was accused of putting his mouth on Carroll’s mouth and pulling down her tights, which Kaplan noted were not treated as alleged sexual abuse at trial.
“The jury’s finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina,” Kaplan wrote, calling it the “only remaining conclusion.”
“Mr. Trump’s attempt to minimize the sexual abuse finding as perhaps resting on nothing more than groping of Ms. Carroll’s breasts through her clothing is frivolous,” Kaplan wrote.
He added that the jury clearly found that Trump had “ ‘raped’ her in the sense of that term broader than the New York Penal Law definition.”
That's your guy.
They did not find him guilty, it was not a criminal trial. They found him liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll and defaming her.
And that's the difference here. You are trying to equate accusations to what is now proven in a court of law, using testimony, and judged by a jury of citizens (even a few Trump voters). It's a false equivalency.
You keep falling back on one major example without acknowledging the inconsistencies in the story she told. Every time we bring up Trump and this conduct, which is current because he is still in court pertaining to the now-proven conduct he was found liable for, you bounce back with something that's pretty much been debunked already if you look at the specifics.I can only share that I believe the women who stepped up with sexual misconduct accusations should be believed. I offered sources here on this thread that give examples of sexual misbehavior that have been levied against both men.
None as far as I know have brought any form of lawsuit against Biden. However, this in my eyes makes the women's allegations any less true. Nor does it excuse his behavior, in my view. And I never mentioned Tara specifically, she was just one on the list. I did not judge one allegation over another.
I have not witnessed any of the 8 women's allegations being
debunked. I have witnessed some media trying to debunk Tara's account --- what about all the rest?And yes, their claims need to be taken seriously. And then investigated. But then people need to judge for themselves the validity of the claims based on the facts of those investigations. Something missing from the right in the Reade case that you clearly continue to list whenever the topic arises in here.
And what of the 25 women who have brought up similar allegations against Trump since 1970? Should this be tried in the media? Or is a court the proper place? How do you have a complete picture or all of the information to make a determination on any of these allegations?
I actually offered a link to the women who accused Trump --- why this question?
again --- I can only share that I believe the women who stepped up with sexual misconduct accusations should be believed. I offered sources here on this thread that give examples of sexual misbehavior that have been levied against both men.
Just because none of these women that have made accusations against Biden, as well as Trump, did not come forth with charges does not lessen their accusation. I give them credit for stepping up and reporting what they felt was sexual misconduct. Most came out during the presidential campaigns, I would assume they hoped to alert Americans of these men's poor behavior.
I give these women great credit. Just my view. We clearly disagree.
"I was careful to use the words accusations of sexual misconduct. He has been accused multiple times of sexual misconduct. He recently lost a CIVIL case with Jean Caroll the jury found him guilty of sexual abuse and definition."
https://www.google.com/search?q=another … s-wiz-serpAgain, in civil cases, juries rule for the plaintiff or for the defendant. Using the word guilty for a civil case is the wrong usage.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/liabili … sponsible.
"I keep seeing, here on HP, that "Trump is a proven sexual abuser". Proven by whom?"
You strike me as an intelligent woman. I just want to suggest that you may want to include a few other news sources to your current choices or choices.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … -rcna82778Proven by whom? You didn't answer my question, you deflected!
I really don't care about your suggestions or what you think I need to do, you have made it perfectly clear what your mission is here.By a jury of his peers, but you know that.
I have absolutely no reason to believe or disbelieve what they have said as I am not privy to the complete story. I'll leave that to a jury if and when that occurs. I have no basis for belief or disbelief.
So, back to Trump...
The prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, had asked for a hearing to address the fact that the employee, who is a possible witness in the case, was represented by the lawyer Stanley Woodward. Mr. Woodward also represents two other possible witnesses and one of the co-defendants, Walt Nauta, a personal aide to Mr. Trump.
Mr. Woodward’s fees have been paid by Save America, the political action committee aligned with Mr. Trump. The PAC was seeded with small donations from Mr. Trump’s supporters, who responded to his calls to help him prove what he falsely claimed was widespread fraud in the 2020 election. No evidence of such fraud ever surfaced. Trump advisers have insisted that there is no connection between any witness’s testimony and payment of their legal fees.
Mr. Woodward declined to comment. A Trump campaign spokesman and a Trump Organization spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.
After the government raised questions about whether Mr. Woodward had a conflict of interest, the judge in the case, which was brought in Florida, Aileen M. Cannon, asked Mr. Woodward whether it was legitimate to have two grand juries in a single case.
Mr. Woodward said he thought it was not, and asked the judge to consider striking Mr. Taveras’s testimony for that reason. Judge Cannon has not yet ruled on that matter, but if she does ultimately move to strike Mr. Taveras’s testimony, it could hamper the superseding indictment brought by the government against Mr. De Oliveira and Mr. Trump.
The government is separately investigating the payment of lawyers by Save America. The PAC has settled more than $21 million in legal fees for Mr. Trump and several witnesses in the case since January.Oh that's right...a jury of Trump's peers.
No rape, but what the hell, pin something on him...right?
He IS Trump after all.Unquestioned adultery. Another president was impeached for it.
Full penetration not achieved only because the victim managed to push him off her.
Oh, well, then, I guess he's only partially guilty and we'll just call it assault.
What a guy. Let's put him back in the White House by all means.I still can't figure out how an accusation is the same as being convicted of a crime in a court of law?
Tomorrow, you'll finally have some new material.
peoplepower73
"But when you ask MAGA who they trust above all else - more than their friends, family, conservative media, religious leaders, more than their very own eyes and ears, they say that they trust Trump.
And that is how you know that it’s a cult."
Not sure how you can ask a slogan, Make America Great Again, a question...but it is interesting that you believe it can be done and that this would be "its" answerab: MAGA= Trumpers. Everybody, including you knows that.
If that's the case, does that mean that only Trump supporters want great things for America?
I don't believe that, do you?ab: I saw this last night in the GOP debates. Conservatives seem to think they are the real Americans and the rest of us our fake Americans. But do you know what? Not a single one of them talked about uniting American into one coherent country..
I think you are correct, many feel the other side is not really true Americans any longer. You truely hit the nail on the head. I also think many have very much given up on even wanting to come together, due to having very little in common. Has this not become clear over the past couple of years?
I can only say, that the Democrats seem very much foreign
to me. I no longer recognize them as having the values that America was built on. This is so very clear to me.Can I ask which of the values that America was built upon does Trump exemplify? Which shine through in his character, words and deeds?
We all live here, Sharlee, and are "true American", just because I don't share the view of the standard rightwinger does not make me anything less....
There are a lot of things "clear" to me, too. Intolerance of the "other" and usurping our mode and manner of governance certainly are not American values.Sharlee…
I do not see where they care about “coming together.” Why waste your time providing facts? How long have you been doing this? What difference has it made?
Answer: None
Your intelligence, humility, and ability to gather facts may be better served elsewhere.
My point is that they do not seem to respect your humility and caring.Please identify one 'fact' in that post you replied to. That was all opinion.
Savvy, -- My Mom had a saying, and your comment brought it to mind. " Common sense is not catchy. So when you come up against someone who does not have it, just smile and interject a couple um-hums".
"I do not see where they care about “coming together.” Why waste your time providing facts? How long have you been doing this? What difference has it made?"
I Agree... it is clear "many" don't respect my comments, most of which are repetitive, due to the repetitive conversations that one finds here.
I will choose to disengage from conversations with individuals with whom I share no common ground. It is quite evident that many here struggle to distinguish between a personal perspective and a comment presenting a factual statement. Clearly, some individuals face significant challenges in adhering to social norms of communication. I suppose my attempts to appease are yielding no productive results. I appreciate the advice provided.
Shar"I Agree... it is clear "many" don't respect my comments, most of which are repetitive, due to the repetitive conversations that one finds here"
Disagreeing with any posters opinions and providing facts in which to do so certainly doesn't equate to disrespect.
Disagreement does not equal disrespect. I thought forums were to facilitate an exchange of thought.
Here one has to fingure out all the things that really divides.
Miebakagh
I don't think the problem is figuring our problems out. Part of the problem is we figured out we can no longer abide by what we would be giving up to come together with ideologies that in no way reflect our values.
So, It would be very hard to mend the great divide due to many of the "things" impinge on what we hold most dear, values, and freedoms we cherish.
SharAmen!!!
As Dr. Jordan Peterson stated recently, we must keep our heads up and have the good sense to stay out of the mire --- because the world needs the United States of America.
"Part of the problem is we figured out we can no longer abide by what we would be giving up to come together with ideologies that in no way reflect our values."
How does political ideology and values intersect? I've always felt that political ideology pertains to your ideas about taxation, size of government and so forth and personal values are quite different. I value kindness, compassion, tolerance, integrity, humility, authenticity,respect and discipline to name a few.
Do these values somehow align me to a particular party or bar me from a particular party?
Is there a notion these days that particular values belong to one party and not the other? Maybe that just furthers the divide because if I'm a person who values respect and civility, anyone's particular political ideology certainly does not offend my own personal values.
I didn't note that at all. First of all, they are so limited with the questions they get, with one minute to respond!
Several spoke of securing the southern border; cracking down harshly on cartels and drug smugglers coming across. Of protecting the most trusting and vulnerable, young citizens, from the deadly drug (which originates in China...btw) fentanyl.
Any discussion of doing better at protecting us and the Homeland, IS uniting.DeSantis promised to send the U.S. military into Mexico to fight the cartels on “day one” if he becomes the next president of the United States.
Starting a war with Mexico is a good idea?
Call me crazy but I think there may be some other options.ab: No it's not. I want someone who is running for president to say. If I am elected president, I will do everything in my power to unite this country, even if it requires compromise on both sides. I will put country above parties.
That is the real problem with this country. It's not about guns to protect us from tyranny, or building walls that can be scaled with a 15 dollar ladder.
They talked about bringing drugs into this country. One of the biggest users of drugs is the out of work coal miners. They need to be re-educated into skills that are in demand now.
They talked about abortion. But they could care less once the child is born out of wedlock or as a result of rape. Then they look at it as being on the government dole and part of the nanny state.ab: It depends on your values and belief system. That determines what you focus on. It's interesting how we can both watch the same thing and come to different conclusions.
I think Christie was the most realistic and reasonable one on the stage, but he polls very low. I believe that is because he doesn't buy into all the Trump agenda BS.
Di Santis wants to go to war with the Mexican cartels. Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall, but he ended up stealing the money for the wall from the department of defense...and the wall can be scaled with ladders made from scraps of lumber laying along side the wall..I value what most Americans value PP -
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
"They talked about bringing drugs into this country. One of the biggest users of drugs is the out of work coal miners. They need to be re-educated into skills that are in demand now."
Such an important point. So much of Appalachia has been devastated by drugs. There's definitely more than one way to attack the issue of drugs in our country. It should be a multi-faceted approach. But unfortunately we never hear that. Programs for people, especially in hardest hit areas are few and far between. The people of Appalachia have been ignored for years.Willow: There are some high tech companies that are re-educating those out of work coal miners in Appalachia and teaching them how to do computer coding.
https://youtu.be/vOWWXMZ641U?si=PmRGOeFFm6gt__MuThat is good news. We often talk about the poverty, crime or devastation that exists in urban areas but rural poverty looks identical, if not worse out in the hollers and rarely gets media attention.
No such thing as "one coherent country". The new GOP is about doubling down on its dogma and not accepting any compromise. That will be the formula for their continued losses short of their trying to rig the system.
Get to the root and destroy it.
Beginning with China, shut down the wide open border, putting drug dealers...and child traffickers, out of business, permanently!!!
Then you can begin to fix the many problems within.Sharrlee: "
I can only say, that the Democrats seem very much foreign
to me. I no longer recognize them as having the values that America was built on. This is so very clear to me."
This kind of statement is the essence of the problem we face.
The GOP is about to nominate for president a man who is facing nearly 100 indictments. How does that equate to "having the values that America was built on"? What is so very clear to a majority of us is that it does not.Kathleen
Why I maintain my support for Trump instead of Biden stems from my perception of the ongoing dissemination of corrupt details concerning Biden, which appears to be more troubling than the unverified accusations surrounding Trump.
Your critique of Trump in comparison to Biden strikes me as inconsistent. From my perspective, Biden seems to have a higher likelihood of benefiting financially through favorable transactions. Although definitive proof is still pending, the accumulation of evidence significantly raises suspicions about his actions. It's possible that you might share a similar sense of skepticism when it comes to the charges directed at Trump.
So, perhaps you might respect I have a right to my view, as I respect that you have the same right.
" How does that equate to "having the values that America was built on"?
I certainly see this statement as hypocritical. In light of the many accusations that are being levied at Joe Biden. It well appears Congress will be initiating impeachment for the many allegations in regard to corruption.
Yeah, sure they will. They can impeach Hunter at this point for selling fake influence to his father. That's about it. Even their star witness claims Joe Biden was not in on that plan.
'Unverified accusations?' Pretty sure when you indict someone, accusations turn to charges based on evidence listed in court filings. The only unverified thing is what you note - 'Although definitive proof is still pending.'
Soon, Jamie Raskin will be releasing his report on Trump's profiteering in office. Like many other comparisons between the two, the conduct of one should dwarf any accusations from the other.
Lastly, remind us again which office makes US policy. Is it the president or the vice president? What was Biden in 2016? What was Trump when he served?Aug 23 2023 --- McCarthy says House could launch Biden impeachment inquiry next month
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/23/mccart … ent-hunter
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) says lawmakers could formally launch an effort to impeach President Joe Biden next month when they return from summer recess.
The big picture: McCarthy floated an impeachment inquiry in July that was met with some trepidation from members of his conference, particularly those in swing districts.
But the party's more conservative members have pushed hard for a Biden impeachment based on questions about his son Hunter Biden's business dealings, which the GOP-controlled House has been investigating.
Driving the news: McCarthy told Fox Business' Larry Kudlow on Tuesday that an impeachment inquiry "gives the apex of power to Congress when it comes to our subpoena power ... to get the documents we need — the bank statements, the credit card statements and others."
"If they provide us the documents, there wouldn't be a need for an impeachment inquiry," the speaker added. "But if they ... fight ... we will move forward with [an] impeachment inquiry when we come back into session."
Yeah!So they want to try and impeach a sitting president, for actions they have no substantial proof of, for conduct he may have committed during a previous term of office, in another government position.
Yeah, good luck with that! Sounds about right for the logic of today's far-right.I have just joined in ---
laughing really loud that is!!Savvy made me recall something my mom always said --- " Common sense is not catchy. So when you come up against someone who does not have it, just smile and interject a couple um-hums".
I feel somehow gyped about what's going on in America. Here was Trump facing serious legal issues in various courts, and biden being tip for impeachment ball. Seriously, who wants America to be broken up?
It seems like you're expressing concern about the political situation in America, particularly regarding Trump's legal issues and the possibility of impeachment for Biden. Your question touches on the broader sentiment and uncertainty within America, due to a great divide in our population.
Political views in a diverse and democratic society like the United States can really vary widely. People have different perspectives on leadership, policies, and the direction of the country. Some individuals might be critical of specific leaders or actions, while others might be supportive. The desire for a united or divided America is subjective and depends on one's values, beliefs, and concerns. I don't think we set out to become divided, many of our values became very different.
It's important to remember that political discourse and differences of opinion are natural in any democratic society. Engaging in discussions, as you clearly do, can be really helpful in gaining a broader perspective on this issue of America's great divide. It is so very complicated.
"If they provide us the documents, there wouldn't be a need for an impeachment inquiry,"
"But an aide for the House Oversight Committee, which has led the investigation into the matter, confirmed the panel has not requested such documents from the White House.
At the end of June, Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) told Kudlow in an interview that the panel’s investigation and expertise are “centered around bank statement and bank records,” but went on to note that the committee has received “100 percent” of what it requested through subpoenas.
“Every subpoena that I’ve signed as chairman of the House Oversight Committee over the last five months, we’ve gotten 100 percent of what we’ve requested,” Comer said. “Whether it’s with the FBI or with banks or with Treasury."
What exactly does McCarthy claim they haven't received? He is very vague.
McCarthy at one point said they were seeking bank statements and credit card statements, though did not specify for whom.
He may launch an inquiry but if he doesn't produce something fairly quickly, I don't see him getting the necessary support for an impeachment.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4165 … o-session/You may want to consider I just posted an article. " House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) says lawmakers could formally launch an effort to impeach President Joe Biden next month when they return from summer recess."
So, I just offered the speaker's thoughts. I did not give a
personal view. Except "yeah".
I can see by your comment you are questioning his thoughts. It would seem all has changed from June to now. This was just reported a couple of days ago.
https://nypost.com/2023/08/22/state-dep … re-report/
I hope Biden has an impeachment trial to look into all the accusations.
I don't feel we should leave Biden in the White House if he is compromised. So, time to prove or disprove these allegations. In this case, dragging one's feet could be dangerous to our Nation.Comer contradicts McCarthy. I am in no way questioning McCarthy's thoughts, only his statements. I have no idea what the man thinks. His statements do lack specificity though.
I also think that you have an inquiry first. I don't think you have an impeachment trial to "look" for information. If an inquiry leads to an impeachment trial then so be it. Just as it followed suit in Trump's inquiry to his impeachment.The post doesn't present the whole story.
"Biden publicly disclosed that on a trip to Kyiv he told Ukraine’s new leadership that Shokin needed to be removed, warning that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees until Shokin was replaced. (Biden did not say when he made the threat, but he addressed the Ukrainian Parliament in Kyiv on Dec. 9, 2015, and dangled the prospect of future U.S. aid if the country rid itself of the “cancer of corruption.”)
“I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden recalled in remarks at an event hosted in January 2018 by the Council on Foreign Relations. “Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”
Trump repeatedly cites Biden’s January 2018 remarks as evidence that the former vice president pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin because he was investigating Burisma.
But, as we said, the evidence shows Biden was carrying out U.S. policy, and the United States was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin."
“After President Poroshenko complained that Shokin was taking too long to clean up corruption even within the [Prosecutor General’s Office] itself, he asked for Shokin’s resignation,”
Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand."There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015,"
The post story rehashes all of the old one-sided information and then adds in something new about allegations from an unnamed source. I need more than this. There's really nothing definitive here.
https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine … 81445.html
Here's the whole fact check
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump … d-ukraine/
All is changing daily in regard to Comer's investigation. August was a very productive month in the way of whistleblowers stepping up with information, and with the document that shows Obama had signed off on giving Ukraine aid without any form of stipulations on firing anyone in the Ukraine Government. However, Joe did put that stipulation on the money. Guess it is yet to be seen if this was a bribe or not. I would think Obama could close the matter if he is subpoenaed. Perhaps he verbally ordered Joe to make a stipulation that the AG be fired.
In my view, this is all getting very ugly. Too ugly to dismiss at this point.
Unverified accusations? They are about to be flipping verified. Not that I have any expectations that it will make any difference. "I could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue ..." is the one truth he ever uttered.
Amazing, but not really surprising. You have a GOP president who refuses to detach from his businesses while serving in the highest office the country has. Charges the government for the protection he receives in the form of hotel rooms at exorbitant rates at his own businesses. He had bank accounts in China while serving in office and was doing business with the Russians while running for office. The guy operates a hotel in the Capitol and many foreign dignitaries choose to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at his businesses. He has business ties to Turkey and makes pro-Turkey policy decisions that lead to fatal results for former US allies while in office. Yet, none of that is seen as corruption.
The next leader's son does business in foreign countries, both the leader and the son's business partners deny the leader had anything to do with the son's business dealings, and suddenly it's labelled as corruption.
I label it as one of the greatest displays of hypocrisy in US history, that's for damn sure.Talk about conflict of interest, Trump is the very definition. Yet, he and his supporters want to imply that anyone else can even be close?
Amen, Val. Amen.
A segment of our citizenry has simply lost their judgment. And they've gone so far down this road, they seem to believe there is no going back.
Thank a merciful God they are a minority of us.
They control the politicians and the government, for the most part. Even Trump admitted he is part of the problem. “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”
And then some bright people elected him to fix it.
This was a great debate, and Trump certainly was transparent, unlike any politician I have known.
"Donald Trump bragged Thursday night that he could buy politicians — even the ones sharing the stage with him at a Republican presidential debate.
Trump was asked about something he said in a previous interview: “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”
“You’d better believe it,” Trump said. “If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.”
The only complaints came from two candidates who yelled that they had received no Trump money. As Trump continued to talk, he was interrupted by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., complaining that Trump instead gave campaign contributions to Rubio’s Democratic opponent.
“I hope you will give to me,” said Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.
“Sounds good. Sounds good to me, governor,” said Trump.
Without missing a beat, the real estate tycoon continued: “I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added, “And that’s a broken system.”
Repeatedly asked what he got in return for his donations, Trump said: “With Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why? She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good.”
Though it surely wasn’t his intention, Trump was illustrating the key problem with the current campaign finance system. Campaign contributions are legally considered bribes only when there is an explicit quid-pro-quo. But as Trump explained, giving money to politicians bought him access and relationships, which he could leverage down the road in the form of favors. Such conflicts of interest are inherent in privately funded election systems. To read more ----
https://theintercept.com/2015/08/07/don … .%E2%80%9DI'm rather baffled that some people find a negative in the first politician to ever acknowledge a problem, the first politician to ever indicate that the system is broken. ("And then some bright people elected him to fix it.")
That simple acknowledgement of a very real problem that we all know exists but has always been "behind the curtain" so to speak, spoke volumes to millions of people while others find that Trump was wrong to address it at all. I don't get it.Trump absolutely captured my focus. He's consistently held my interest by refusing to yield, regardless of the challenges he faces – he just keeps pushing forward. While I'm uncertain about the outcome, I can affirm that he's undeniably prompted numerous Americans to recognize the individuals seeking power and the corruption within Washington. He undeniably exposed it all to an extreme degree. From my perspective, anyone unable to perceive the evident truths amidst the aftermath is simply choosing not to see.
Furthermore, he made the process of fixing issues appear incredibly straightforward, leading one to question why we as citizens have been so profoundly misled before he came on the scene.Behind the curtain? Do you live in US?
The fix it part is the problematic. But Im sure you know that.And his fix is to attack and eliminate the system so he and his family can rule as a line of kings. No thank you.
In my view, your comment is really not logical. Just saying. In my view Trump solved problems, but Biden's problems are mostly of his own making.
Could we possibly not pass judgement on comments here? Agree or disagree, but who are any of us to label a comment logical or not?
"he's undeniably prompted numerous Americans to recognize the individuals seeking power and the corruption within Washington." Yes. He has certainly shown his own true colors. His corruption is about to be answered for in several courts. I can't name any other politician right now who is facing those kinds of consequences.I wanted to share my honest opinion, and I hope you can understand that this platform encourages open discussions. I always aim to be respectful and yet straightforward in my communication. If you have any concerns about my comments, please feel free to report them to the moderator. Just a reminder, I'm here to engage in political discussions, so comments unrelated to the topic might go unanswered. My primary focus is sharing political views, so personal opinions about me or my communication style don't affect my purpose here. Thank you for understanding.
In regard to Trump and his legal problems --- I rely on the value of innocence until proven guilty.
Thinking legislation, and not also considering Executive Orders, were the only means a president used to affect change might be a limitation to your investigation and comparison.
And if you think that breakdown will put a dent in the view of the MAGA crowd here, I've got an enrollment at Trump U to sell you."And if you think that breakdown will put a dent in the view of the MAGA crowd here, I've got an enrollment at Trump U to sell you."
I tend to agree. But I also do believe we have some differences in MAGA adherents. Some are logical but become entangled in these illogical fallacies. While others are ideologues and some are simply drawn to the cult of personality.
I do suppose that any post-mortem of the Trump presidency by an "outsider" will be dismissed out of hand but I would encourage any one of them to conduct that very honest assessment for themselves.
Call me crazy, I just like to see statements quantified and qualified whenever possible.
I listed (in a previous post) positive achievements, in my opinion, of Biden's current legislative record, I don't think one person disagreed with or discounted any of it. If MAGA folk disagree with what he has passed, I would think they would have spoken up but instead they just ignored.
Sort of leads one to believe that they do see the positive but cognitive dissonance kicks in.
Prosecutors signed cooperation agreement with Mar-a-Lago IT worker
A Mar-a-Lago IT worker struck a cooperation deal with prosecutors investigating former President Trump’s handling of classified records at his Florida home, according to a filing from his former attorney.
It was already known Yuscil Taveras had flipped in the case after prosecutors working with special counsel Jack Smith pushed the IT worker to speak with an outside attorney.
But the filing from his former attorney makes explicit that Taveras will not face prosecution on perjury charges after initially giving false information to investigators.
Taveras — whose testimony led to a superseding indictment accusing Trump, Nauta and the Mar-a-Lago property manager of attempting to delete security footage at the property — is expected to testify in the case.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba … it-worker/Trump wrote to-do lists for assistant on White House documents marked classified: Sources
One of former President Donald Trump's long-time assistants told federal investigators that Trump repeatedly wrote to-do lists for her on documents from the White House that were marked classified, according to sources familiar with her statements.
The sources said Michael also told federal investigators that last year she grew increasingly concerned with how Trump handled recurring requests from the National Archives for the return of all government documents being kept in boxes at Mar-a-Lago -- and she felt that Trump's claims about it at the time would be easy to disprove, according to the sources.
Sources said that after Trump heard the FBI wanted to interview Michael last year, Trump allegedly told her, "You don't know anything about the boxes."
Michael is believed to be the person identified in special counsel Jack Smith's indictment as "Trump Employee 2," described in the indictment as someone who handled many of Trump's White House-era boxes at Mar-a-Lago and who provided Trump with photos of those boxes that were then included in the indictment.
A lot more. The whole article it's quite revealing.
READ HEREJack Smith probed Trump’s nuclear subs discussion with Australian billionaire: Report
Former President Trump allegedly discussed classified information about U.S. nuclear submarine capabilities with an Australian billionaire at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago club after he left office, ABC News reported Thursday.
The billionaire then passed the classified information on to others, who reported the disclosures to federal special counsel Jack Smith, according to reports.
Trump allegedly discussed the submarines with billionaire Anthony Pratt in early 2021, disclosing classified information about how many nuclear armaments they carry and how close they can travel to Russian submarines without being detected.
ABC News reported that Pratt later shared that information with more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and multiple journalists. The FBI and Department of Justice prosecutors have questioned Pratt about the information at least twice.
According to those Pratt mentioned the conversation to, Trump told Pratt that Australia should purchase U.S. submarines, then disclosed the classified information while “leaning” toward him, as if to be discreet. He told a total of 45 people about the interaction, ABC News reported.
After months of negotiations, the Biden administration agreed to sell at least three nuclear-powered submarines to Australia in addition to training and other aid in a three-country defense agreement with the U.K. in March. Those submarines will not carry nuclear weapons.
Smith charged Trump with illegally holding classified documents at the Mar-a-Lago property in June, alleging that he hid them from Department of Justice investigators. That case is scheduled to go to trial in May.
That case does not include mention of the alleged disclosures to Pratt.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba … re-report/Thank you for keeping us posted. For some it won't make a dent. For the rest of us - we appreciate it.
Nope, still haven't seen, nor heard anything "good".
Nothing convincing, but I am convinced that someone {currently} in the White House is getting a little nervous right about now.
"Build the wall", seriously?
Distraction or campaign pledge?
If you don't want to talk about it, we can talk about the Bidens and China!
I can share all day about that and it "will be good". Well not for us nor our Country, but, in substance, "good".HINT: Once here, Venezuelan migrants / immigrants could end up voting for Conservative values having experienced the terrible loss of freedom and the onslaught of Socialism in their country.
The Biden administration has stopped Venezuelans from staying in America.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/politics … index.html
Related Discussions
- 116
Danger: Biden's Presidency akin to the Weimar Republic redux?
by Credence2 2 months ago
I was disturbed by an article I had recently read. The main theme emphasizing similarities between the current administration and the period during the 1920's after WWI and before the deluge of Hitler's ascendency in Germany. Yes, the article is from Salon but its content is still food for thought....
- 50
President Donald Trump's poll number remain steady.
by Readmikenow 10 months ago
Even after being indicted, President Donald Trump's poll numbers remain solid. Could be a result of people losing faith in the legal institutions such as the FBI an DOJ? Is it possible the blatant use of them against a political opponent is obvious to more and more people?"Donald...
- 342
Better hang on to your MAGAT hats, Rightwingers!
by Credence2 20 months ago
Republicans feign outrage over Biden's recent comments?It's enough to make you dizzy, isn't it? Here we have evidence of Republicans routinely calling Democrats fascists (and communists and even pedophiles etc.) yet they are, once again having a hissy fit over Biden using the same word to describe...
- 82
The 2024 Candidate Mental Decline Thread
by J Conn 2 days ago
Figured I would leave this one pretty general and give everyone the chance to contribute. One guideline though - the mentation episode must be from this date forward. Nothing in the past, only current episodes.
- 9
Biden Agrees To Debate President Donald Trump
by Readmikenow 19 hours ago
Thoughts?I don't think things will go for biden in this debate. I will be watching it."Biden and Trump will debate in June and September. But the terms have changedPresident Biden and former President Donald Trump have agreed to a pair of presidential debates hosted by television...
- 104
Hunter & Joe Starring in 'How to Gain Political Wealth in America'
by Angie B Williams 5 months ago
Hmmm...how will they maneuver this giant obstacle? I can see/hear Jean-Pierre perfecting the spin already:https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/comer … 12125z6etw