Trump is Immoral and an Outlaw
This is based on my observations.
CNN has a split screen this morning. On the left side is the Supreme Court arguing over if Trump has absolute immunity as president. On the right side of the screen is the ongoing trial with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Last week they were covering his tax fraud case with the City of New York. In the court room is Jack Smith, the lawyer who is trying to prosecute Trump for mishandling of highly classified documents.
Trump is the only president in the history of this country to not accept losing an election and and providing a peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected president.. He used his precedency as a cover for all the immoral and unlawful things he has done.
He knew that if he was not elected president for another term, he would lose his cover. That's why a year before the election he started the mantra of "If I lose, the election it must be rigged". Then when he lost the primary, he changed it to "There must be fraud" and tried to convince many justices to no avail.
Out of desperation, he and his merry band of Trumpers tried to accuse Dominion and Smartmatic voting machine companies of fraud, resulting in Fox News settling out of court, while the Smartmatic law suit is now in process. They also threated an innocent mother and daughter ballot counters with their lives.
Jan, 6 was contrived to try to keep him as president and create a huge distraction if he lost, because he needed the cover of the presidency to protect him. Now he is a civilian and he has no cover. Therefore, he comes up the immunity gambit with the Supreme court. And he will use every action he and his lawyers can contrive to delay all court proceedings until after he is elected again. Then he gets a home free card and he can use his power to exact revenge on those who tried to block his tactics and pardon himself and all those who were involved in his heinous crimes.
Trump is like the God Father. He leaves a trail of people who have gone to jail for him while he remains innocent, even though he is guilty as charged. He requires loyalty and paying homage to him just like a mafia boss while destroying those who oppose him. He is also a master-con artist who plays the victim when caught in the con and at the same time attack his enemies.After carefully reviewing your initial message, I'm uncertain about the direction you intend for this chat thread. I'm having difficulty discerning any specific inquiries you're seeking answers to or any invitation for conversation. It appears that your thoughts in this piece align closely with your own perspectives. However, I'm curious to know what you have in mind for us participants to contribute to the discussion.
I appreciate your careful review. You can contribute to this thread by agreeing or disagreeing with my assertions about Trump being immoral and an outlaw based on my supporting evidence. I never thought of you as being speechless.
I can infer from your comments that either I have said it all or you are afraid to comment on any part of my discussion because everything I said is true and you have no further comments.
If you give a president immunity for everything you end up with a dictator. A president or king can not be above the law.
It is a catch 22. If you give immunity (s)he can be a complete dictator. If you don't,the political opponents can submerge him/her in unending court battles, just as we are seeing. It has never been done, until now, but with this experience I think we will see it again in the future, with nearly every President we get, just as we are seeing unending cries for impeachment. Our justice system has been weaponized, and that is not going to change in the near future.
I'm glad I'm not a part of that trial.No one is above the law, Wilderness, period.
The President is not free to commit crimes in office, trying to steal my election is clearly beyond the scope of his duties, yet not be prosecuted. It is stupid that this idea can even be discussed with a straight face. Heads need to roll.Trump is a very flawed human, that the establishment will fight his entire 4 year term, just as it fought him his first 4 years.
Trump is exactly what America needs.
Can't get what we want, but sometimes, we get what we need.
The alternative right now of Biden/Harris is nothing less than death to America if they get re-elected.
If you want to ensure WWIII... social unrest... challenges to civilized society... the likes of which most Americans have never thought possible... re-elect Biden its where his Administration is taking America.Too flawed to be anywhere near the White House. Trump is a jerk, why do you see him as the be all and end all of everything?
Lawless, autocratic sorts are just the kind of people that I don't need.
What gives you this oracle type vision of what is surely going to happen in the future? You haven't convinced me that " the sky is falling stuff" is real.
I think they will come up with some form of in-between. I would not want to be part of that task.
I've heard mutterings about actions "private" and "public". Or some such. And perhaps that is the answer both already there legally and ethically.
If a president can do whatever he/she likes you create a very dangerous situation. Why not kill your opponent if you have immunity?
The other scenario may be endless court battles, but at least a president will think twice knowing that there will be consequences.
You need a system that keeps the people in power in check. I think it's better to improve this system (the juridical system) than to give immunity to the top boss.The other scenario is indeed unending court battles. Who wants a president that spends every day in court, and who would choose to be president knowing they face 4 years of court battles against the might of the entire nation, and with prison likely?
A catch 22, like I said. Hopefully someone smarter than I can come up with an answer in between somehow. I fear they can't; there will always be hundreds/thousands/millions of people looking for loopholes to worm over/around/through/under the intent of the law, just as there are now.Yes but I think you can better have a president that can face court every day than a cart blanch. That´s asking for much more problems.
Personally I think that to appoint judges for life is deeply undemocratic law enforcement. And asking for trouble too.
Judges with so much power should rotate, just like a president should never be in power more then 8 years.
I never understood why a person with such a sordid past would put himself under the brightest spotlight on the planet for constant scrutiny. What did he think would happen when every investigative body in the world turned their sights on him?
Of course he was right about his followers. But there are fewer and fewer of them as the counts against him increase.
And, in the name of accuracy, it is not a "hush money case". It is an "election interference case."
I respect "innocent until proven guilty". But his total lack of any redeeming character was enough to turn me against him back when he was a reality TV star. "Reality TV" should have been risky enough for someone like him. Wouldn't you think?PeoplePower, To address your OP ---
When it comes to media coverage, it's evident that the perspectives we encounter depend on which network we choose to watch. While I appreciate the coverage of multiple cases, I find it concerning that some of the pundits lack formal legal training and tend to offer speculative opinions without presenting all the relevant facts.
While it's true that Trump's response to losing the 2020 election has been unprecedented in modern times, it's inaccurate to claim that he is the only president in history to not accept defeat gracefully. There have been instances in the past where other presidents disputed election results or raised concerns about the validity of the process. Additionally, attributing all immoral and unlawful actions solely to Trump's presidency overlooks historical context. It's essential to acknowledge both the successes and failures of any administration without resorting to blanket statements.
While it's true that Trump's rhetoric about the possibility of election fraud started well before the 2020 election, it's a stretch to suggest that his entire motivation for seeking reelection was merely to maintain a "cover" for alleged immoral or unlawful actions. Like any incumbent president, Trump likely had a combination of personal ambition, policy goals, and a desire to continue his administration's agenda.
Furthermore, it's not uncommon for politicians to raise concerns about the integrity of elections, especially in highly contested races. Trump's legal challenges to the election results were part of a broader effort to ensure the accuracy and fairness of the electoral process, as perceived by his supporters. While these actions may be subject to criticism and are, is it fair to reduce his entire reelection bid to a strategy for self-preservation that seems to oversimplify the complexities of his political motivation?
Yes, it's factual that Trump and some of his supporters made accusations of fraud against Dominion and Smartmatic, two voting machine companies, in the aftermath of the 2020 election. These allegations led to legal action, with Fox News settling out of court in response to defamation claims related to their coverage of the issue.
Additionally, a lawsuit filed by Smartmatic against various parties, including Trump's campaign team and media outlets, is indeed ongoing. I am not aware of the accusations that a woman and her daughter were threatened, and by whom she was threatened by. It appears necessary for us to place some trust in the judicial system to carefully examine the cases, even if we may not always agree with their verdicts or rulings.
When considering the individuals you referenced who faced legal consequences allegedly connected to Trump, it's crucial to note that their crimes didn't directly implicate Trump's involvement. Each case should be assessed independently, taking into account the specific charges and evidence presented.
While it's understandable to scrutinize Trump's leadership style and tactics, likening him to a mafia boss oversimplifies the complexities of his behavior and motivations. Loyalty is a common expectation in many leadership roles, and it's not uncommon for leaders to expect allegiance from their followers.
Additionally, characterizing him as a "master con artist" implies a level of intentionality and deception that may not accurately reflect his actions. Trump's approach to dealing with opposition may be aggressive, but it's not unusual for politicians to defend themselves vigorously against criticism and attacks. It's essential to evaluate his actions and behaviors based on evidence and facts rather than relying solely on sensationalized comparisons.
Edit - This paragraph has gathered concern from a few users here. I felt my context clear by using the words "Unprecedented in modern times" referring to Trump's refusal to accept the election results in 2020. Here is the paragraph in question --- Followed by a few sources that I considered while writing my original comment.
The paragraph in question -- While it's true that Trump's response to losing the 2020 election has been unprecedented in modern times, it's inaccurate to claim that he is the only president in history to not accept defeat gracefully. There have been instances in the past where other presidents disputed election results or raised concerns about the validity of the process.
Sources
* Hillary Clinton
"Hillary Clinton is sticking with her conviction that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying the details surrounding her loss are still unclear.
“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”
“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee continued. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”
https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton- … 16779.html
How the 2000 Election Came Down to a Supreme Court Decision
https://www.britannica.com/event/Bush-v-Gore
8 Most Contentious US Presidential Elections
These presidential elections brought out the wild side in our nation’s democratic process.
https://www.history.com/news/most-conte … -elections"There have been instances in the past where other presidents disputed election results or raised concerns about the validity of the process. "
Please cite sources.Your trolling. We agreed not to communicate. I don't intend to converse with you, ever...
Now, you are pouting, Sharlee. I don't recall any instance where the madness Trump brought on the country over his unprovable claims had been imitated in any previous presidential contest.
"Now, you are pouting, Sharlee. I don't recall any instance where the madness Trump brought on the country over his unprovable claims had been imitated in any previous presidential contest." Cred
Nor did I say it did --- context should matter. Not sure where you are coming from the fact is I pointed out very clearly, "Trump's response to losing the 2020 election has been unprecedented in modern times." Did you read my comment? I find it odd that I continually need to point out context. I take time and effort to make my words understood as written. I have no reason to pout. My comment to Kathleen was not meant as a pout, it was meant as a reminder.
My comment - While it's true that Trump's response to losing the 2020 election has been unprecedented in modern times, it's inaccurate to claim that he is the only president in history to not accept defeat gracefully. There have been instances in the past where other presidents disputed election results or raised concerns about the validity of the process.Comparing Trumps behavior with any losing candidate in a past presidential is like comparing a puddle to the Pacific Ocean. And we both know that. There has been no one or circumstance that even comes close. A Dispute is not a 4 year lying spree. Trump's response is unprecedented over all time.
Oh My... Where in the world do my words go to compare anyone else but Trump's action or response to losing the 2020 election being UNPRECEDENTED IN MODERN TIMES... The definition of unprecedented -- never been done or known before. I took care not to compare the actions or the severity of other presidents regarding disputing election results.. My God come on.
Sharlee, the unprecedented part was the fact that Trump is the only defeated incumbent not to ever concede publicly that he lost!
"No presidential candidate has ever refused to concede defeat once all the votes were counted and legal challenges resolved."
You mentioned Hillary, but her response was to bring up the fact that there could have been irregularities since she won the popular vote. She did concede the fact that she would not be president. Trump did not yet he continues to claim he won. He has said it so many times that now he probably has convinced himself.
There were also some words and sniping between Al Gore and George W. Bush, including Gore actually rescinding his congratulatory call to Bush, then calling him all over again. But he still made a public concession.
Source for both comments: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/hist … at-matters
I think you are mistaking some natural sour grapes or sniping for the "unprecedented" actions of Trump that eventually led to the January 6 insurrection. I do not use that word loosely. Other than the War of 1812 when the building was set afire by the British, I do not find any other time in our history when our nation's Capitol was invaded and the Vice President was threatened with bodily harm.I hope you'll take the time to read the entire paragraph and understand the nuances of my thoughts. In my opening sentence, I clearly state that I found Trump's response to losing the election to be unprecedented in modern times. However, I also acknowledge that there are other instances of candidates who did not accept defeat gracefully. I provide examples of several such candidates who disputed election results or raised concerns about the validity of the process. I want to clarify that I am not conflating the term "unprecedented" with these other instances; rather, I am drawing a distinction between Trump's response and those of others who simply contested election outcomes or questioned the validity of the electoral process.
The paragraph in question --- "While it's true that Trump's response to losing the 2020 election has been unprecedented in modern times, it's inaccurate to claim that he is the only president in history to not accept defeat gracefully. There have been instances in the past where other presidents disputed election results or raised concerns about the validity of the process."" it's inaccurate to claim that he is the only president in history to not accept defeat gracefully."
That is not what I said. Here is what I said:
Trump is the only president in the history of this country to not accept losing an election and and providing a peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected president.I promised to give a well-thought-out response to your OP. It is lengthy, did you read it? It appears not.
This is what you said, followed by my thoughts on the subject.
"Trump is the only president in the history of this country to not accept losing an election and and providing a peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected president.. He used his precedency as a cover for all the immoral and unlawful things he has done." PP
"While it's true that Trump's response to losing the 2020 election has been unprecedented in modern times, it's inaccurate to claim that he is the only president in history to not accept defeat gracefully. There have been instances in the past where other presidents disputed election results or raised concerns about the validity of the process." Shar
I shared my perceptive, I did not dispute your thoughts regarding how Trump handled the aftermath of the 2020 election. I called it unprecedented in modern times. Which was as far as I wished to comment on it, that conversation has been beaten to death, and it odd you never listen, that I thought it was not acceptable. You seem want something that I have offered before, but you have no listened .
Yes, I went on to share "it's inaccurate to claim that he is the only president in history to not accept defeat gracefully. There have been instances in the past where other presidents disputed election results or raised concerns about the validity of the process"
This is called conversation... Expanding on a conversation, perhaps even starting a debate.
I wish you had read my entire comment to your OP. I put time and effort into my comment. You chose to jump in on a response I left for Willow.
Here is the permalink to my original comment
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/360 … ost4328503I read everything very careful. You are talking about accepting defeat gracefully. I'm talking about he is the only president in the history of this country to not accept losing an election and not providing a peaceful transfer of power.
There is a huge difference in our statements. You are generalizing about any president. I am specifically talking about Trump's actions on Jan.6
How many presidents have created a fake set of electors showing them winning the election? That's what Jan.6 was about. Pence was supposed to present the fake electors to the electoral college. To this day Trump is still harping that the election was stolen from him. He will never accept losing the election because it is not in his DNA.
I get that you don't like Biden and think he is failing from a cognitive decline. But that is your opinion. You will vote for Trump for the lesser of the two evils. I will vote for Biden for the same reason, the lesser of the two evils.Maybe time to stop. By no means did I make mention of "You are talking about accepting defeat gracefully.". I pointed out we have had other candidates not accept defeat gracefully. Again my words please read them, and tell me where I say anyone is accepting defeat gratefully --- its just the opposite. I even offered links to show how other candidates did not accept defeat gracefully...
"While it's true that Trump's response to losing the 2020 election has been unprecedented in modern times, it's inaccurate to claim that he is the only president in history to not accept defeat gracefully. There have been instances in the past where other presidents disputed election results or raised concerns about the validity of the process." Shar
I'm talking about he is the only president in the history of this country to not accept losing an election and not providing a peaceful transfer of power. PP
As I said I did not write a book responding to your thought on the above --- I agreed with my statement with this statement -- While it's true that "Trump's response to losing the 2020 election has been unprecedented in modern times,"
Not sure what you are not understanding, I would think you wanted more of a hyperbolic statement --- I don't do hyperbolic. I was concise., with my agreement.
Regarding your thoughts on Trump, I have covered all of that ad nauseum.
Regarding Biden—indeed, you correctly interpreted my stance; it is indeed my opinion. I've made it known for a while now that I'll be casting my vote for the Republican candidate, regardless of who it may be. As things stand, it seems likely to be Trump, and yes, I'll be supporting him. My decision was not swayed by emotions or animosity towards Biden; rather, as is my habit, I meticulously weighed the pros and cons before arriving at my choice.
Thanks, Credence. You are a man among men.
Sometimes conversing, when given the opportunity to tell a truth, is worth a few day's vacation from the forums...
There is a person on these forums who advocates the strongest for what is destroying our country today...
A Trust fund has always been there to take care of him...
I find it interesting how so often these are the people most likely to advocate for Marxist, Communist nonsense.
It is interesting to see... how inheriting wealth, and never having to worry about anything, makes a person view the world in the way he does.
Its also interesting to see how such a person reacts when someone injects truth into their nonsensical views.
If you can't speak to truth... it isn't worth speaking, whether it be here in the Forums, or any other platform. Most of the world is losing that ability to speak facts, let alone opinion.Absolutely, it's quite telling to observe how individuals will respond when confronted with facts that challenge their unfounded beliefs. Truth should always be the cornerstone of any conversation or discourse, whether it's here in the Forums or on any other platform. Sadly, it does seem like the ability to speak the truth is diminishing in today's society.
I've never seen such a phenomenon where context can be completely twisted merely because it doesn't fit someone else's mindset. It's as if some people fail to grasp the proper definition of a word, even when it's a simple term that should be universally understood.
At any rate, I will be picking my conversations carefully... LOLFortunately for the rest of us, participants in these forums do not have to pass anyone else's test for what is or is not acceptable here, in spite of some people's elevated opinions of their own qualifications to judge others..
Simply asking for a source for a statement of fact.
"I'm pleased to note that I promptly accommodated your request for sources. Fulfilling that request posed no issue whatsoever. Just a gentle reminder, it was actually at your suggestion that we refrain from communication. I wholeheartedly agreed then, and my stance remains the same. I'm a bit curious as to why you're reading my comment, given our mutual decision not to engage in conversation. It seems a bit redundant.
"I am not aware of the accusations that a woman and her daughter were threatened, and by whom she was threatened by. "
I'm sure this wasn't covered by right leaning media. The women were Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. They also testified before the j6 committee.
These women have had their entire lives uprooted because of Trump's statement about them. He demonized them and threats followed.
He stated..calling Freeman a
“professional vote scammer,” a “hustler” and a “known political operative” who “stuffed the ballot boxes.”.
A president, attacking citizens in this way is just unfathomable. At every turn, he shows his lack of character and values. He is a morally bankrupt man.
Ruby Freeman's response:
“Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you? The president of the United States is supposed to represent every American, not to target one. But he targeted me."
Do Trump supporters even give a sh*t? Or is this woman just expendable for the greater good?
In what world should this ever happen and then be accepted? It's not acceptable to me.
But we should be focusing on Biden's gaffes?
I'm baffled by those in our public that consider themselves Christians but conveniently turn a blind eye this type of repulsive behavior.
Great lesson for the next generation? Lie about and trash others if it helps you.I note that the mother and daughter Ms. Moss and Ms. Freeman sued Giuliani for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy arising from statements he made to intentionally undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election, and won their case.
Have they filed a lawsuit against Trump? Has Trump ever mentioned their names when discussing the incident? Regardless, Giuliani did, so many would associate these women's names with what Trump was addressing. Such accusations are truly unacceptable, and these women have been deeply hurt by them. I certainly have not trashed these women, in any respect, nor would I.
You've inquired whether these women are seen as dispensable for the greater good, alongside mentioning what you refer to as "Biden's gaffes." From my standpoint, it seems you're discussing the 2024 election. With two candidates on the table, it's an unavoidable reality. In my opinion, there's simply no alternative but to opt for one whom I don't find confusing or unfit due to cognitive issues. I must express my belief that Trump performed better. There's no necessity to diminish Biden's performance with lists or insults. He's just an individual whom I perceive as having done a subpar job and displaying early signs of dementia. Who could reasonably cast a vote for such an individual?"Who could reasonably cast a vote for such an individual?"
I could and I am as "reasonable" as it gets.How can anyone justify reelecting a man who, in my opinion, has nearly destroyed our country and is clearly struggling with mental faculties? I consider myself rational and have observed Biden's actions closely. Regrettably, I can no longer respect anyone who would support a man who has faltered in his duties and appears to be growing more bewildered by the day. The problem I see is that many will not face the realities that surround Biden.
But that is your opinion, I will take my chances with Biden over a man shrouded in crime and malfeasance who threatened to overthrow our govt. And lets not split hairs this time. What do you think he is whining about receiving immunity for? There are millions that support Biden and loath Trump, as we continue to isolate his die hard supporters from moderate and reasonable people who might pause before putting a potential convicted felon in the top job. He lost in 2020 and will probably lose again. I think the trends are turning against Trump on many fronts.
I'm willing to leave the question of immunity to the court's discretion, trusting in their commitment to upholding constitutional principles. It's evident that there are millions who strongly oppose Biden. Perhaps consulting the polls is our best recourse for insight at this juncture.
So, if Trump isn't found guilty of a felony, does this imply he'll still be perceived as a potential convict? Are you suggesting that most people won't accept any verdicts?
As for the outcome of the 2024 election, I can't say for certain. I rely on the polls as they offer the most tangible indicators currently available. My intuition leans towards a Trump victory, but only time will tell. Naturally, I hope he wins. I will accept the election one way or the other as I always do."So, if Trump isn't found guilty of a felony, does this imply he'll still be perceived as a potential convict? Are you suggesting that most people won't accept any verdicts?"
The very idea that the person who is to enforce the laws as Chief Executive presenting so strong an appearance of impropriety in obeying the laws himself would give me pause, but again that is just me.
There are some that would not support Trump if he were convicted of a felony, while not having their opinion changed if he were guilty of misdemeanor or otherwise lesser charge.
There are some, the die hards, Trump could murder the Pope and they would still vote for him.
Then there are people like me that consider the composite of illicit behavior enough not to support this man.
My intuition is that his fragility will be all the more revealed in the coming months to his detriment.
" I can no longer respect anyone who would support a man who has faltered in his duties and appears to be growing more bewildered by the day. "
To no one in particular: Neither can I, so I'm voting for President Biden.
"Have they filed a lawsuit against Trump? Has Trump ever mentioned their names when discussing the incident? Regardless, Giuliani did, so many would associate these women's names with what Trump was addressing. Such accusations are truly unacceptable, and these women have been deeply hurt by them. I certainly have not trashed these women, in any respect, nor would I."
From your reply, you didn't even know who they were when I mentioned them.
The law suit gets filed against Giuliani, but Trump gets away clean, just like a mafia boss. However, the Georgia indictments should take care of that. But he will do everything in his power to delay the proceedings and get Fani Willis removed from the case."Has Trump ever mentioned their names when discussing the incident?"
I will reiterate..again..
In early January, Trump himself singled out Freeman, by name, 18 times in a now-famous call in which he pressed Georgia officials to alter the state’s results. He called the 62-year-old temp worker a “professional vote scammer,” a “hustler” and a “known political operative” who “stuffed the ballot boxes.”
Freeman made a series of 911 emergency calls in the days after she was publicly identified in early December by the president’s camp. In a Dec. 4 call, she told the dispatcher she’d gotten a flood of “threats and phone calls and racial slurs,” adding: “It’s scary because they’re saying stuff like, ‘We’re coming to get you. We are coming to get you.’”
Two days later, a panicked Freeman called 911 again, after hearing loud banging on her door just before 10 p.m. Strangers had come the night before, too. She begged the dispatcher for assistance. “Lord Jesus, where’s the police?” she asked, according to the recording, obtained by Reuters in a records request. “I don’t know who keeps coming to my door.”
“Please help me.”
Trump did this.. how is something like this ever acceptable by any citizen let alone the president? This is malicious.
"I must express my belief that Trump performed better. There's no necessity to diminish Biden's performance with lists or insults. He's just an individual whom I perceive as having done a subpar job"
But Trump is a subpar human being .
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … s-georgia/Again -- Has Trump ever mentioned their names when discussing the incident? Regardless, Giuliani did, so many WOULD associate these women's names with what Trump was addressing. Such accusations are
TRULY UNACCEPTABLE, and these women have been deeply hurt by them. I certainly have not trashed these women, in any respect, nor would I.
I've read your comment, and taken in your perspective, I respect it. It's clear you're not alone in holding that view. However, when it comes to electing a president, our considerations might diverge. For me, I focus on the present situation, job performance, and, unfortunately, I have to factor in mental capacity as well. We're essentially entrusting the leadership of our nation to this individual. From my standpoint, someone in the early stages of dementia simply isn't suitable for the role of the presidency. This, for me, is the foremost concern, and I believe it should be a priority for everyone. Just to reiterate, this is my personal viewpoint.He has mentioned them by name many times.
"Trump mentioned Freeman's name 18 times on a now infamous call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger"
And he continued...
"As Donald Trump renews his offensive against an innocent election worker in Georgia, remember that his own team told him these claims weren't true."
"the former president published another item, accusing Freeman of election crimes, followed by a third missive, in which the Republican asked, “What will the Great State of Georgia do with the Ruby Freeman MESS?”
Sick to have continued to torment innocent women. For many of us, Character matters. I question the mental capacity, the sociopathy of an individual who would engage in such behavior. It is not normal or acceptable. I'd go as far as to say that Trump meets the criteria of a sociopath.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho … -rcna64038
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/05/96382878 … ed-threats
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … s-georgia/I'm not entirely sure what else I can add regarding Trump's treatment and words directed at these women. I consistently refrain from offering any form of exaggerated over-the-top responses, as it's simply not my style. To reiterate my stance: "Such accusations are truly unacceptable, and it's evident that these women have been deeply affected by them. I want to emphasize that I have never disparaged these women in any way, nor would I ever do so."
I've taken note of your perspective regarding the importance of character and your opinions on Trump's character. Many share and or have issues with his character.
Sharlee, did you intend the last three links as your sources for supporting other Presidential candidates and elections in the past that were in contention?
My sources were to note how several presidential candidates did not accept loss "gracefully"... I in no respect compared any of these incidents to Trump's actions in the 2020 election... Hence my sharing the context that Trump's actions was "unprecedented in modern times"
My statement -- While it's true that Trump's response to losing the 2020 election has been unprecedented in modern times, it's inaccurate to claim that he is the only president in history to not accept defeat gracefully.
Not sure why some here are not comprehending my words and my
thoughts. I used rudimentary words. I don't intend to continue to give any further explanation to that paragraph. I think the context is very clear.
Gracefully -- in an attractively elegant way; in a respectful and dignified way.
unprecedented - never done or known before.We comprehend your words, but what do they have to do with Trump not accepting losing the election and not providing a peaceful transfer of power to Biden? He also planned on submitting a fake electoral slate created by many state governors. How many times has that happened throughout history?
Who cares if other candidates did not accept losing gracefully. How many of your candidates tried to do what Trump did? It was an obstruction of an official proceeding to confirm that Biden was going to be president.My comment was in response to your OP. I responded to each of your paragraphs in order as written. Here is your second paragraph and following how I responded to your query.
Second paragraph -- Trump is the only president in the history of this country to not accept losing an election and and providing a peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected president.. He used his precedency as a cover for all the immoral and unlawful things he has done. PP
My responce. Note I agreed and also debated -- While it's true that Trump's response to losing the 2020 election has been unprecedented in modern times, it's inaccurate to claim that he is the only president in history to not accept defeat gracefully. There have been instances in the past where other presidents disputed election results or raised concerns about the validity of the process.
I have shared over and over with you, that I have no evidence as of yet to prove what if any part Trump had planned to submit a fake electoral slate created by many state governors or many of the accusations. These are thus far accusations. You just do not seem to comprehend we come to a given conclusion differently. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. It appears you may believe in guilty until proven innocent. I mean that is what you project at any rate."I have shared over and over with you, that I have no evidence as of yet to prove what if any part Trump had planned to submit a fake electoral slate created by many state governors or many of the accusations. These are thus far accusations."
Here for your dining and dancing pleasure is everything you wanted to know about Trump and company and the fake electoral college slate.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … indictment
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … r-AA1nGMhF
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … ctors.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … -rcna34605I haven't denied or dwelled on the accusations at this point; their significance seems minimal currently. If any of these accusations are valid, those responsible will likely will have legal consequences. Many have already been indicted. Similarly, if Trump was involved in the alleged scheme, he too should be held accountable under the law. Thus far your articles do not directly show Trump had anything to do with these people's decision to break the law.
I would think a true factual trial of evidence would be needed to convince me Trump was even involved.
Trump is immoral and an outlaw?
Isn't that Biden and his Administration?
Who has America on the brink of nuclear war with Russia?
Who has made Transgenders a protected minority, pushing aside women from their own spaces and sports?
Who is allowing children to be mutilated?
There is no doubt that the Clown Show is currently in control of America... those wanting to do it the most harm... those who are insane (or mentally incompetent) are in control today.
One doesn't have to like Trump to recognize those who have replaced him have done far more harm to America than Trump ever did.
If you're not an illegal immigrant, or a billionaire, the only reason you can give to vote Democrat that makes rational sense today is Abortion...
Sadly, 58% of women voted for Biden in 2020, it will probably be more come 2024... they aren't driven to vote due to the economy or what is being done to our children so much as they are all about that one topic.
Many can't see past that one issue to the greater good... even as they fear the lawless nature taking over our cities, even though they can no longer afford their car payments.From an armchair scholar, I think the Court will get this one right—even if they punt it back to the appeals court first. The hypotheticals offered by the justices show both sides leaning toward establishing a line between official and unofficial acts of office. Unofficial acts will not be immune.
The bribery in appointments example shows both sides: the appointment is an immune official act, but taking a bribe to do so is not. Their examples also supported the thought that the lower court should deal with that definition first before SCOTUS weighs in.
GAHmmm, not the conservative "textualist" justices inventing provisions that are nowhere to be found in the constitution?
Nothing in the Constitution explicitly mentions the concept of presidential immunity.
Let's remember that conservatives relied on a strict interpretation of the Constitution’s text and original meaning to overturn R v W.
They seem to be leaning toward crafting something that has no basis in the Constitution, no precedence. Not surprising.
I think Justice Kagan went to the heart.
“The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how to. There were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn’t provide immunity to the president,” said Kagan. “And, you know, not so surprising. They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law.”
Attorney Michael Dreeben emphasized that the court would effectively be announcing judge-made law if it says presidents are entitled to criminal immunity.
“There is no immunity that is in the Constitution, unless this Court creates it,”
And I cannot get past the seeming contradictions...
"Writing for five conservative justices in Dobbs, Alito referred to the notion of guaranteed access to abortion as “an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.”
For me, this court has lost their way and their credibility. I see another polarizing decision coming down the pike. And no one's even mentioned Clarence Thomas. Considering his wife's involvement in January 6th, he should have recused.There is no 'right'... to get.
There is no one that will be able to escape this being done to them in the future. Every person to become President or run for the President will bow to the Party, bow to the establishment, or they will be destroyed in the courts.
We will have a continuous string of puppets, with the real powers behind the curtains pulling the strings, not an elected government, but a uncontrollable autocracy shifting further into accepting insanity and communism as the norm.
Ultimately it might be better than a Stalin or Mao being in charge, but not by a whole lot... still will be a system built entirely on lies, deception, and intimidation.As far as I know, no one is above the law in this country. We are a democratic republic. Trump is not a monarch, although he may think and act like he is.
Trump argues that the federal charges against him, including allegations of defrauding the United States by promoting a conspiracy to block certification of the 2020 election results, are invalid.
He claims that his actions were part of his official capacity as president while taking the actions alleged in the indictment.
How can that be true? That means any president running for re-election has the right to overturn the final result of the election if they do not accept losing the election.
I have to give Trump credit for perseverance when it comes to keeping his a** out of the pokey. He is like StarTrek and goes where no man has gone before. It's not in the constitution, so therefore, it must be O.K.
100%... It's scary how swiftly this has unfolded, and even more scary, from my perspective, how it seems to have escaped the notice of many.
Your prediction regarding WWIII. is being realized. I have been reading about France ready to send in troops... Who next? So much betrayal all around us.
According, to of all things, a CNN Poll.
CNN Poll: Trump maintains lead over Biden in 2024 matchup as views on their presidencies diverge
Donald Trump continues to hold an advantage over President Joe Biden as the campaign – and the former president’s criminal trial – move forward, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. And in the coming rematch, opinions about the first term of each man vying for a second four years in the White House now appear to work in Trump’s favor, with most Americans saying that, looking back, Trump’s term as president was a success, while a broad majority says Biden’s has so far been a failure.
Trump’s support in the poll among registered voters holds steady at 49% in a head-to-head matchup against Biden, the same as in CNN’s last national poll on the race in January, while Biden’s stands at 43%, not significantly different from January’s 45%.
Looking back, 55% of all Americans now say they see Trump’s presidency as a success, while 44% see it as a failure. In a January 2021 poll taken just before Trump left office and days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, 55% considered his time as president a failure.
Assessing Biden’s time in office so far, 61% say his presidency thus far has been a failure, while 39% say it’s been a success. That’s narrowly worse than the 57% who called the first year of his administration a failure in January 2022, with 41% calling it a success.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cnn-poll-tru … 05451.htmlWilderness: "If you don't,the political opponents can submerge him/her in unending court battles, just as we are seeing."
What we are seeing is a citizen being indicted for crimes that evidence in court will either confirm or prove wrong. 91 of them.According to CNN, more people are going to vote for President Donald Trump than biden.
I wonder why.anyone who would support a man who has faltered in his duties and appears to be growing more bewildered by the day.
MAGA to a T(rump).https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/opin … =url-share
The lede: "the case is about preventing wealthy people from using their businesses to commit crimes and hide from accountability."No, its political, its an abuse of the Justice system, simple as that.
The Biden Administration on the other hand....
Jack Smith's Prosecution of Trump is a Coverup Wrapped in a Setup...
https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1786830247972737045
Must say, it was an interesting read.
Right wing news is your bias confirmation. My bias confirmation is the MSM. Ones viewpoint in these forums is based on what news source you use and that is reality.
CNN and MSNBC hide facts, distort facts, fabricate... proven over and over, as does all Cable MSM News... FOX as well.
Just like NY court systems are creating their own laws and rules... not based on facts or precedence or reality.
Judge Juan Merchan is not allowing Trump to mention
1. Lauren Merchan's fundraising off of the Prosecution of Trump by her own Father.
2.Mathew Colangelo, formerly of Biden's Justice department, deployed to Bragg's office to argue for the prosecution.
3.Convicted perjurer, Michael Cohen, who is making money off trashing Trump.
4. 87% of the jury are Biden supporters.
This is election interference.
Gag orders are supposed to protect the DEFENDENT.
Those people who are independent thinkers and are interested enough in the issues to do some research know better than to believe what our MSM is presenting... its as biased and unreliable as any source out there."87% of the jury are Biden supporters."
Do you have a source for this?
The judge didn't allow the lawyers to ask whether potential jurors were Democrats or Republicans, whom they voted for.
"Gag orders are supposed to protect the DEFENDENT."
WHAT??
How so, in what definition of gag order do you find this?
Gag orders are to prohibit individuals from publicly speaking about an ongoing case. Typically done to protect the sanctity of the trial, often for fear of news coverage or public opinion spoiling the jury pool. A gag order seeks to prevent public statements that could cause harm to the overall case or people involved (witnesses and jurors) that cannot be undone. It is not to protect the defendant.
https://www.ajc.com/opinion/geoff-dunca … JKMNPCDKQ/
"Unlike Trump, I’ve belonged to the GOP my entire life. This November, I am voting for a decent person I disagree with on policy over a criminal defendant without a moral compass." Geoff Duncan served as Georgia’s lieutenant governor from 2019 to 2023.There is nothing decent about Biden, or his Administration.
Voting for Biden is like voting for both the death of America and the Constitution.I think this is an issue... "old School" Republicans do not like that Trump commandeered the Republican Party in 2016.
Those "old school" Republicans I hope come to realize that the alternative (Biden/Democrats) have proven far worse for them and the country.
It was clear in 2018 a good percentage of the old guard chose to retire or undermine the Trump Administration, in spite of what was good for the country or what the voters wanted who put him there.
It will be interesting to see how people feel in 2024, from early on Biden trying to make vaccinations mandatory (or loss of job) to the economy and how the dollar is worth 30% less now than it was in 2019 (because of uncontrolled spending).
Related Discussions
- 49
Trump may well win, my greatest fears realized.....
by Credence2 11 hours ago
A contemporary "Reign of Terror" when Trump wins, buckle up.Bill Maher, and many forum participants on the left and Right has said that Harris would win. Some have directed me to look at the outrage against women and their reproductive rights promoted by Trump and the Republicans.I don't...
- 583
Why Many Might Not Vote for Trump
by J Conn 11 hours ago
1.) Corruption a.) Trump just offered to sell policy to the oil industry for $1 billion b.) Tried to blackmail a foreign country to get a fake investigation c.) Tried to steal a presidential election with blatant lies d.) ...
- 49
Democrats who won't accept Presidential election results
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
- 172
Never Have I Seen A President Seek So To Dived And Spread Hate
by Sharlee 6 months ago
Here once again Biden stands at a podium swings around his hands, and rants, seeking and appoint blame on American citizens, ultimately Republican citizens. Without cause, without proof of the motive of why or what possessed this nut job that attacked Paul Pelosi. Although in front of only a...
- 46
Look who is protesting the election results. Would the right do the same if Hill
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
Look who is protesting the election results. Would the right do the same if Hillary had won?The answer is obviously NO. Now we see who are the real intolerant, the bigots and the deplorables...It is ironic how the left talks about inclusive except when they are doing the chosing...As a spectator of...
- 127
Trump leaves a wake of turbulence behind him and is still campaigning
by Mike Russo 12 months ago
More than 1,100 people have been arrested on charges related to the Capitol assault. Of those, more than 630 have pleaded guilty and at least 110 have been convicted at trial.Five people including a police officer died during or shortly after the riot and more than 140 police officers were injured....