trump supporters - do you acknowledge that trump has a cult based on personality?

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 103
#61
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Would you be more open to make concessions to somebody calling you the axis of evil or to somebody saying you are a great person?
I would be more open to making concessions to someone who has something useful to offer me in exchange. Sending me love letters is not that.
#62
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
His defense is that he had a right to those documents.
I know, but what makes you a hypocrite is that your theory is that he didn't have a right to those documents and yet you refuse to admit the implications of this "law" for anyone else
And what makes you obtuse is the fact that you can’t get through your head that the mere possession of those documents is not the issue. No matter how many times I’ve explained this you just keep repeating the same nonsense - cause you are wrong here and you know it.

For the fourth or fifth time now, walking out of a store with an unpaid item is not where the crime is committed, the crime is the purposeful selection and concealment of that item from those whom it belonged. This is first grade level stuff.
#63
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@DavidAZZ
Once he fails, quits or resigns, he is out and another will come to take his place.  MAGA is a movement, not a person.  The "cult of Donald Trump" as you say will move to another when Trump is no longer around.
No, it won’t. We’ve already seen what happens when other politicians try to emulate MAGA - they fail spectacularly.

The problem with MAGA is that it is at its core, a movement based in ignorance. That’s why it appeals so strongly to people without college degrees - things always look stupid when you don’t understand them. The issue is that a movement based in ignorance can only be lead by an ignoramus, and ignoramuses have no appeal to those of us who know better.

This is what makes Trump so unique and remarkable. This is a guy who has spent his entire life conning people into believing he’s some kind of self made billionaire whose achieved what he has off the strength of his uncanny genius. A genius so on the level that he operates in a space the rest of us cannot even see let alone understand. And he does this all while at the same time, demonstrating himself to be a total moron.

It’s this brazen contradiction that gives Trump his superpower. When he does something stupid, he’s really just playing 3D chess. His supporters are able to write off everything he does in biblical fashion; ‘Trump works in mysterious ways’. So no matter what he does or says he gets a pass, a pass we would give to no other person on the planet.
#64
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
His defense is that he had a right to those documents.
I know, but what makes you a hypocrite is that your theory is that he didn't have a right to those documents and yet you refuse to admit the implications of this "law" for anyone else
And what makes you obtuse is the fact that you can’t get through your head that the mere possession of those documents is not the issue.
Your personal opinions are of no relevance. The law you people claim to be interpreting is.


No matter how many times I’ve explained this you just keep repeating the same nonsense - cause you are wrong here and you know it.
Flatearthers can explain the same thing many times too. It's just that they're wrong every time.


For the fourth or fifth time now, walking out of a store with an unpaid item is not where the crime is committed
For the 5th-nth time: yes it is whether most people would prosecute or not.


the crime is the purposeful selection and concealment of that item from those whom it belonged.
Find it in the law. How about you try to steal a car from a dealership, hard to hide a whole car. See if that gets you off the hook.

Also (for the fourth or fifth time): the concealing is the accusation. That is not conceded to by Trump or me. He thought he had a right to keep whatever he wanted and was providing some documents as a courtesy. Just like Biden and everyone else in history since classification existed.
#65
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 5,385
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I would be more open to making concessions to someone who has something useful to offer me in exchange. Sending me love letters is not that.
Well you are not the leader of north Korea who has a culture of honor to uphold
#66
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,852
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
It amazes me how people think diplomacy is all about vinegar and bombing the shit out of people. That's exactly the reason why the world is turning against America.
#67
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
For the fourth or fifth time now, walking out of a store with an unpaid item is not where the crime is committed
For the 5th-nth time: yes it is whether most people would prosecute or not.
You are grossly ignorant of how these things work. Here is a sample; NY law on larceny:

§ 155.05 Larceny; defined.

1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.

Just like nearly every law on the books anywhere, intent is purposefully built into the law. Is not theft if it happened by accident. It’s not theft if a person has an item in their shopping cart that they forgot to put on the register and ends up leaving the store with it. So if you want to prosecute someone for theft, you have to prove that their actions were deliberate. Because that’s when a morally wrong has actually been committed.

the crime is the purposeful selection and concealment of that item from those whom it belonged.
Find it in the law.
Ok. Let’s let ChatGPT work:

Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 793) – Unauthorized Retention of National Defense Information: Trump was accused of willfully retaining classified documents related to national defense, including sensitive military information, without authorization. This law prohibits the possession of such materials when it is known that they have been removed from their proper place of custody.

Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1519 and § 1505): Trump was accused of obstructing the investigation by allegedly hiding or concealing documents and making false statements to federal authorities. This includes efforts to prevent the government from retrieving the documents.

False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001): Trump faced accusations of making false statements to federal investigators, including misleading the FBI about the location and contents of the documents.

Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371): In some aspects of the case, Trump was accused of conspiring with others to obstruct justice, including his aides and legal team, who allegedly assisted in the concealment or misrepresentation of the documents.

Notice how no one, not even Trump, is accusing Biden of any of this. Because Biden didn’t do any of this, Trump did. That’s what we call different. And different means they are not the same. And not the same means that when you claim that they are the same, you are either being egregiously dishonest or you are breathtakingly ignorant. Calling different things different is not hypocrisy, it’s honesty.

Also (for the fourth or fifth time): the concealing is the accusation. That is not conceded to by Trump or me.
That’s where evidence comes in, and it’s overwhelming. The only defense you and all of MAGA has is that it’s all a giant conspiracy, which is when you know you have no rational justification to keep spouting the nonsense you do.

And what makes you obtuse is the fact that you can’t get through your head that the mere possession of those documents is not the issue.
Your personal opinions are of no relevance.
This isn’t a court of law, it’s a debate site, which falls into the court of public opinion. Personal opinions are what matters here. Whether the case against Trump meets the standards to deprive him of his freedom is not the issue here, the issue is whether he deserves to again be granted unlimited access to our classified secrets. The fact that you would support that despite all of the above referenced is absurd.
#68
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,888
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@n8nrgim
@ADreamOfLiberty
How does one know if one is in a cult?

Intervention, except, that cant happen with MADA cult of Trumpet because all their friends are MADA cult of Trumpet.

Their trapped in a closed loop cult spiral that can only lead to a few possible conclusions, none of which are good for them, tho maybe good for humanity. I dunno
#69
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
For the fourth or fifth time now, walking out of a store with an unpaid item is not where the crime is committed
For the 5th-nth time: yes it is whether most people would prosecute or not.
You are grossly ignorant of how these things work. Here is a sample; NY law on larceny:

§ 155.05 Larceny; defined.

1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.
Ah, so if the crime requires intent; then one cannot intend to deprive another of property if one does not believe it is the property of another.

In fact I know from experience that if you call the cops and the other guys says "no this is mine" 99.5% of the time the cops will say "civil matter, see ya".


Just like nearly every law on the books anywhere, intent is purposefully built into the law.
How convenient that you know Trump's intent. Where is intent built into the law you claim he broke?



the crime is the purposeful selection and concealment of that item from those whom it belonged.
Find it in the law.
Ok. Let’s let ChatGPT work:
Ask chat GPT why Hur said "willfully" means "knowing he took classified material" rather than "thinking he had a right to keep classified material"?


Notice how no one, not even Trump, is accusing Biden of any of this.
Well there is a base level of honesty that is hard to overcome. It is lawfare and is nonsense.

For example, when Biden said that his notes were his to keep, was that "making false statements to federal investigators" or "obstructing the investigation"?

When there were more documents in his house than he personally reported, and in different locations, was that "making false statements to federal investigators" or "obstructing the investigation"?

I can put my derangement simulator hat on and say: yes.


Trump did
So believe fools and so claim liars and fools.


Also (for the fourth or fifth time): the concealing is the accusation. That is not conceded to by Trump or me.
That’s where evidence comes in, and it’s overwhelming.
So did he concede or not? Yes this is one of those questions I will just keep asking until you throw a fit and quit. Your refusal to be bogged down by your own statements is a problem that must be made your problem and not my problem.


Personal opinions are what matters here.
Not to me. I care about the truth which means I care about logic. I am not interested in the epistemology within your skull that has nothing to do with reality or a rational person's perception of reality.


the issue is whether he deserves to again be granted unlimited access to our classified secrets
"Saying the quiet part out loud" is the appropriate comment here. You never believed he had a right to know classified things so you think you are entitled to lie about the law.

Nothing is classified to the president and nothing is beyond his ability to declassify.

At this point government secrets do more harm than good. We all deserve unlimited access to everything they deem classified. That's my opinion, but my opinion doesn't change what the law says and neither does yours or any of your TDS brethren.
#70
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@ebuc
How does one know if one is in a cult?
Intervention
From whom?


Their trapped in a closed loop cult spiral that can only lead to a few possible conclusions, none of which are good for them, tho maybe good for humanity. I dunno
So no escape. Pity you'll never know.


#71
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Double_R
No, it won’t. We’ve already seen what happens when other politicians try to emulate MAGA - they fail spectacularly.
BUT we have not seen it done without Trump out of the picture.  So, to conclude this is not fully true.

Yes Trump pushes the rallies and his personality is dynamic, but the movement was still in the hearts of the people for a while.  Like I said, Trump was the catalyst. 

The problem with MAGA is that it is at its core, a movement based in ignorance. That’s why it appeals so strongly to people without college degrees - things always look stupid when you don’t understand them. The issue is that a movement based in ignorance can only be lead by an ignoramus, and ignoramuses have no appeal to those of us who know better.
Here we have an interesting concept.  You state that college educated people are voting blue when the "uneducated" will vote red.  To me, it seems that the colleges are the institutions that are brainwashing kids to their way of thinking and for a hefty price.

#72
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ah, so if the crime requires intent; then one cannot intend to deprive another of property if one does not believe it is the property of another.
Google reasonable person standard

How convenient that you know Trump's intent.
It’s not convenience, it’s basic logic and reason. If a person solicits a minor for sex online, tells them he’s coming over with a bottle of wine to “show them the ropes”, then appears at their door with a bottle of wine and condoms… it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what his intent was.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly Trump supporters are to abandon all semblance of common sense to defend this guy. Assessing people’s intent is something you do literally every day of your life. You look for clues in people’s words, actions, tone, and even body language to assess them often without even thinking about it to come up with your own opinion on how pure their intentions are. It’s one of the most basic human traits we have, hell even animals do this. But when it comes to Trump suddenly this is an impossible task that no amount of evidence could ever prove. How utterly ridiculous.

Where is intent built into the law you claim he broke?
It was all noted in bold in my previous post which you clearly didn’t bother to read.

Ask chat GPT why Hur said "willfully" means "knowing he took classified material" rather than "thinking he had a right to keep classified material"?
Because that’s not what it means.

For example, when Biden said that his notes were his to keep, was that "making false statements to federal investigators" or "obstructing the investigation"?
Google reasonable person standard

That’s where evidence comes in, and it’s overwhelming.
So did he concede or not?
The lack of the defendants concession is irrelevant to what the evidence proves.

#73
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Google reasonable person standard
Google "dodging the question".


Ask chat GPT why Hur said "willfully" means "knowing he took classified material" rather than "thinking he had a right to keep classified material"?
Because that’s not what it means.
and Hur speaks only falsehood... right, Thanks Chat GPT.


[Double_R] It’s not gaslighting, it’s pure facts.
[ADOL] Mostly accusations
[Double_R #56] Supported with clear evidence, and most of which Trump is not even contesting. His defense is that he had a right to those documents.
[ADOL] I know, but what makes you a hypocrite is that your theory is that he didn't have a right to those documents and yet you refuse to admit the implications of this "law" for anyone else (in history or present).
[Double_R] And what makes you obtuse is the fact that you can’t get through your head that the mere possession of those documents is not the issue. No matter how many times I’ve explained this you just keep repeating the same nonsense - cause you are wrong here and you know it.

For the fourth or fifth time now, walking out of a store with an unpaid item is not where the crime is committed, the crime is the purposeful selection and concealment of that item from those whom it belonged. This is first grade level stuff.
[ADOL] Also (for the fourth or fifth time): the concealing is the accusation. That is not conceded to by Trump or me.
[Double_R] That’s where evidence comes in, and it’s overwhelming.
[ADOL] So did he concede or not?
[Double_R] The lack of the defendants concession is irrelevant to what the evidence proves.
Full context restored with some post numbers and emphasis added.

So to review: You said Trump is not even contesting "most" of the "evidence". Then you say the "issue" is not "mere possession", rather it is the "purposeful selection and concealment from those whom it belonged."

Turns out that the only "evidence" Trump doesn't contest is what you dismissed as an issue, i.e. the fact of "mere possession".

He does not concede that he concealed anything. He does not concede that the documents (as copies) were the property of anyone but himself. He certainly doesn't concede that it was an adjudicated matter and was using lawyers to contest the claim of ownership. Indeed precedent is clearly on his side as previous rulings have stated that the advise given to the president (everything presented to him classified or not) is sacrosanct and irrevocable.

Is there anything of relevance (to your absurd theory of the law) that he has not contested?

#74
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
He does not concede that he concealed anything.
His concession is irrelevant, the evidence shows clearly that he did.

He does not concede that the documents (as copies) were the property of anyone but himself.
He doesn’t get to decide what is his personal property, just as I don’t get to fight off a shoplifting charge by claiming ownership of the items I grabbed off the shelf.

precedent is clearly on his side as previous rulings have stated that the advise given to the president (everything presented to him classified or not) is sacrosanct and irrevocable.
Lawyers don’t get advise you to commit crimes, and him telling his lawyers to lie to the FBI is not covered under the law.
#75
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Is there anything of relevance (to your absurd theory of the law) that he has not contested?

#76
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@borz_kriffle
[borz_kriffle] If you meant the latter, do you genuinely believe that he would delay the case this long if he was innocent?
[ADOL] There is more than one trumped up case, and if you're talking about delay tactics from his lawyers I genuinely think lawyers will do whatever they feel will serve their clients interest. When the problem is kangaroo courts convened to disrupt democracy there is every reason to think their position will be much better after there is no election to subvert as a motivation.

That didn't take long.
#77
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Is there anything of relevance (to your absurd theory of the law) that he has not contested?
The fact that he admits to taking the documents and defending it based on the ridiculous notion that they’re his is pretty damn relevant, assuming we’re applying basic logic to the case that he lied to the FBI about having them and even went so far as to move them to a different location to prevent them from finding it.

there is every reason to think their position will be much better after there is no election to subvert as a motivation.
What didn’t take long? For the special counsel to recognize that pursuing a criminal trial against a sitting president, especially one who has already said he would fire him “in 2 seconds” is pointless to continue with? Sounds like common sense to me.

#78
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Is there anything of relevance (to your absurd theory of the law) that he has not contested?
The fact that he admits to taking the documents
Thought you said that wasn't the issue?

Yea here:
And what makes you obtuse is the fact that you can’t get through your head that the mere possession of those documents is not the issue.

Pick a story.

#79
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The fact that he admits to taking the documents
Thought you said that wasn't the issue?

Yea here:
And what makes you obtuse is the fact that you can’t get through your head that the mere possession of those documents is not the issue.

Pick a story.
Ok, let’s slow this down.

First, please notice the word “mere” in the second quote. That means that him simply having possession of the documents doesn’t make it illegal/unethical/immoral. Whether we’re talking about the legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that is admissible in a court of law, or whether we’re talking about the court of public opinion where the standard is much lower and the only real test of admissibility is Occam’s razor, the principal is the same; No one piece in isolation is going to substantiate the crime. The question is whether the case against him adds up. Please read that again if you need to before continuing.

Now that we understand the basic principal, let’s go back to my quote except this time, I’ll include the part you cut off:

The fact that he admits to taking the documents and defending it based on the ridiculous notion that they’re his is pretty damn relevant
The second part of this quote is what gives the first part meaning. It doesn’t matter that he took the documents, it matters why. Because there are circumstances where the fact of him taking the documents isn’t prosecutable. For example, it could have gotten mixed up with other records and he didn’t realize it. Doesn't matter whether we’re talking about the law or assessing his viability as a candidate, the principal is exactly the same and that is what you ignore every single time you argue about this, which is why you’re wrong.

If Donald Trump did what Joe Biden did; called the FBI and said hey I’ve got classified documents that belongs to the government here, you good should take them… we wouldn’t be having this discussion. There would have been no raid, no indictments, no political firestorm. But he didn’t do what Joe Biden did. That’s called a difference, and differences explain why they are not treated the same. Because different =/= the same.
#80
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,852
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
@ADreamOfLiberty
Whether or not you think lawfare was used against Trump solely because he was a contender is actually irrelevant.

If it was true, the public punished those who did it.

If not, then the other side knows the perception of lawfare depends on the equal application of the law when the person isn't a contender. (pre 2016 and pre the announcement to run for 2024)

In either case, we probably won't see this kind of bullshit ever again from a sane party.
#81
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
No one piece in isolation is going to substantiate the crime.
This is a red herring aiming at a strawman.

You did the old "nobody even denies what he did" thing, an attempt to paint anyone who doubts the trumped up charges as a reality denier. We're getting to the bottom of that or we're not getting anywhere. I don't dig these holes, you pick the spot with your stubbornness.

So if it turns out that Trump does contest an essential element of the purported crime, then what could the possible relevance of "most of which Trump is not even contesting"

be?

Why did you say it if it doesn't matter?


If Donald Trump did what Joe Biden did; called the FBI and said hey I’ve got classified documents that belongs to the government here, you good should take them… we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
....but he couldn't have done that because nobody thought it was illegal or even inappropriate until they went after Trump. That's why order matters.

You won't call the FBI tomorrow and confess to the possession of socks because you can't possibly know that in three years a deranged fascist state would try to claim concealing socks from the FBI is a crime.
#82
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
If it was true, the public punished those who did it.
There I must disagree strongly my dear parrot.

Nearly pulling it off, costing millions of dollars, subverting an election with disinformation, causing unwarranted emotional stress from a frivolous prosecution, all that is not resolved because the left-tribe lost an election.

If that is where the story ended they will have gotten off Scott free and there would be no deterrent for more to try. Why not try when you don't spend your own money, you don't risk your own hide?

It was basically an all expenses paid TDS adventure safari for these people and it directly attacked the foundation of our civilization.

They need to be in jail or fined 500 million dollars, preferably both. Then they will have been punished.



In either case, we probably won't see this kind of bullshit ever again from a sane party.
Again strongly disagree. We can easily see with cops that when they face no personal consequences for abusing their power they just keep doing it.

Losing their job isn't enough sometimes and they certainly don't give a shit if the government has to payout of the tax coffers to their victims.

#83
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,852
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There I must disagree strongly my dear parrot.

Nearly pulling it off, costing millions of dollars, subverting an election with disinformation, causing unwarranted emotional stress from a frivolous prosecution, all that is not resolved because the left-tribe lost an election.
Let's hope losing their jobs is enough.
#84
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So if it turns out that Trump does contest an essential element of the purported crime, then what could the possible relevance of "most of which Trump is not even contesting"

be?
Because proving a case means proving all of the elements, so when most of the elements are there that simplifies things nicely.

Better question is; Why do you need that explained?

....but he couldn't have done that because nobody thought it was illegal or even inappropriate until they went after Trump.
Nobody thought it was illegal to lie to the FBI, obstruct their investigation, and maintain the documents you have been warned are property of the US government and told to give back?

But I’m the one with derangement syndrome. Ok bro.

#85
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,852
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Now that we can step back and see the trainwreck Kamala was, do you think a (D)strongman/woman will be allowed to win the next election, or will there be yet another DEI contender?

Have lessons been learned here? Or will there be the usual endless excuses about how one side is garbage misogyny and racism?
#86
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,852
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
@ADreamOfLiberty
Id be delusional if I thought the MAGA cult would ever accept that their conspiracy world view is not real.
Like the Democrat cult accepted the reality that Trump isn't a threat to democracy? When all the elite media outlets were told to stand down and stand back regarding democracy? That this fabricated worldview is not real?

I'll believe it when I see it.

When they stop creating the tiniest loophole to hang their political opponents, when they fabricate only 34 counts because 3400 would seem fishy, I will believe it. 

You probably haven't been following the appeal court wins lately (of course), but there is a similar refrain from the judges,
"...no case precedent..."
#87
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
So if it turns out that Trump does contest an essential element of the purported crime, then what could the possible relevance of "most of which Trump is not even contesting"

be?
Because proving a case means proving all of the elements, so when most of the elements are there that simplifies things nicely.
Let's count those potential elements:

1.) Has classified documents
2.) Knows he has classified documents
3.) Doesn't immediately run to the national archives and stick them in the return box

Am I missing any?


....but he couldn't have done that because nobody thought it was illegal or even inappropriate until they went after Trump.
Nobody thought it was illegal to lie to the FBI, obstruct their investigation,
Imaginary events.


and maintain the documents you have been warned are property of the US government and told to give back?
There is no "warning clause" in the law.
#88
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
You probably haven't been following the appeal court wins lately (of course), but there is a similar refrain from the judges,
"...no case precedent..."
I'm looking forward to the future appeals of the fake courts.

Judges have this nasty habit of following the popular sentiment and that's not what they thought it was after 2020.

It was extremely therapeutic to listen to that appeals judge in NY basically accuse them of election interference over the "falsifying records" BS.
#89
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Have lessons been learned here? Or will there be the usual endless excuses about how one side is garbage misogyny and racism?
I can’t speak for anyone else, and I wouldn’t call any of it a “lesson” because I’m not in politics. Here are some of the learnings I’ve taken out of the past week.

America is a heavily misogynist country, even more so than I previously thought. It turns out Trump’s support for men was boosted tremendously by men who saw his (fake) bravado as an inspiration, and despite the fact that this is the man entirely responsible for the rolling back of woman’s rights to their own bodies, the male vote for Trump still outpaced the female vote for Harris. I find that remarkable.

The left badly underestimated the right’s ability to bolster an imaginary bogeyman. To quote one pundit, “maybe if the left wasn’t so obsessed with trans issues they might of won”. The ignorance and reality inventing here is insane. No prominent left wing figure campaigned on trans issues. It’s not the left that is obsessed with trans people, it’s the right. The left generally isn’t thinking about any of this and yet the right just kept inventing an image of the left going out everyday trying to find new ways to turn kids trans. It’s remarkably stupid and totally disconnected from reality, and yet it worked.

This election reinforced that no one actually cares about policy. Kamala Harris talked about her economic plans ad museum while Trump could barely utter a sentence without just repeating the word tariff over and over again. Despite economists everywhere telling America Trump’s plans were far more catastrophic it went almost unchallenged that Trump was the better candidate on the economy. That’s absurd. He’s just the guy who pounded the table harder. People just aren’t smart or educated enough to understand how basic economics works so they just credit/blame whoever happens to be sitting in the WH. Little can be done about that.

Lastly, America is now a country that either does not care about the country we leave to our children or we’re just too stupid to realize that a government of by and for the people is not actuated by magic, it’s something we have to work for and maintain. We just reelected the man who incited an attack on the US Capitol as part of his  attempt to overturn an election because we were worried about the price of eggs. There used to be a time when we as a country appreciated the sacrifices made by those who came before us to give us the gift of democracy and felt the obligation to pass that to future generations, but not anymore. Our passions of the day are now more important.

That’s what I’ve learned. As far as what needs to change? Not a whole lot. We do have to be more careful of the silly little anecdotes that the right will use to create their new imaginary enemies of the future, but the reality is that this is how government works; it’s a pendulum that is always swinging back and forth. The governing parties lost vote share in every developed nation on earth for the first time since 1905. That’s not because of our political differences, it’s because of the damage covid caused. That was out of our control, but after another Trump term that pendulum will swing way back.
#90
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Like the Democrat cult accepted the reality that Trump isn't a threat to democracy?
He is a threat to democracy, that’s a fact.

Remember on Election Day when Trump went on and on about the fraud that was taking place in Pennsylvania? What happened to that? Oh, Trump won so it’s all fine now.

No serious person would claim Trump would have accepted the results if he lost, and he now has the power of the Justice department along with criminal immunity to use them however he wants. He won’t be on the ballot next election (although I guarantee he’ll at least dip his toes in the water to so if he can) but if he thinks (which he probably will) that the democrats will prosecute him should he leave office he’ll try to rig the next election and this time he’ll have the lackeys in place to help him do it.

That’s the reasonable presumption at this point based on everything this man has shown us about him. Regardless of whether it comes to pass or not, the fact that we put ourselves in this position where the only thing stopping it from happening is the personal restraint of a man who has never demonstrated such restraint is a damming indictment on us as a society and the disrespect we have towards past and future generations.