Why do you still raise Trump as an issue?

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 69
Topic's author
#31
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
 it also does not exonerate him."
That, and  your other quotes all speak to Mueller's own impasse because he didn't think he could indict, and had to make those excuses. His error. It would have been much easier to indict, and let the chips fall as they will.

Trump is a threat to democracy
I've heard that so many times, yet it is never justified. WHY is he a threat? HOW is he a threat? WHEN was he a threat? Be specific.
#32
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@949havoc
Again, you're relying on your own interpretation of the Constitution to suggest Trump is innocent because of 'Mueller's Impasse'. Yet, you are not a lawyer while Mueller is as well as being former head of the FBI. There's really no comparison between opinions here.

Trump is a threat to democracy
I've heard that so many times, yet it is never justified. WHY is he a threat? HOW is he a threat? WHEN was he a threat? Be specific.
You mean besides trying to influence the results of an election with the influence provided by his office, trying to undermine confidence in our democratic process, or trying to overturn the results of an election with demonstrably false claims? 
#33
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@949havoc
I've heard that so many times, yet it is never justified. WHY is he a threat? HOW is he a threat? WHEN was he a threat? Be specific.

He was a threat because he had an opinion. In Orwell's world, that's a crime.
#34
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,166
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
"Thats not how it actually works." Oh that is most certainly how it works. That's how it worked for TRUMP and that is how I will judge BIDEN. Fair is fair. Trump fixed the boarder Biden ruined it, Trump lowered gas prices, Biden caused them to go up. Trump didn't call for tyrannical covid mandates Biden does, I could go on and on. I am judging Biden on everything that gets worse and I know nothing will get better. It's mindboggling that we have 3 more fucking years of this fucking incompetence to go. I didn't like some of the stuff Trump did.  But Biden is a fucking nightmare from hell for anyone who just wants to be left alone and carry their own weight. My opinion of course.  Govt only hurts me, it never helps me. I always vote for people who say they will stop doing things and try to limit govt. I will never vote for anyone who says they will try to help me.


Topic's author
#35
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Damn! You don't read for comprehension much do you? what about "I've not interpreted whether Trump is guilty, or not, but you have, even without an indictment, let alone a trial" do you fail to understand. I have not and do not and will not advocate for Trump's guilt or innocence. Get it? Finally? You're the one insisting he is guilty, but there is no indictment, let alone a trial. Wear it, you own it.

You mean besides trying to influence the results of an election with the influence provided by his office, trying to undermine confidence in our democratic process, or trying to overturn the results of an election with demonstrably false claims? 
NONE of that exists in any indictment. Do you get that?  Your condition is much more than skeptical. Just skeptical would understand, You're in lalalland assuming he should already be in jail. just stop it. I get it. You hate him. And?
Topic's author
#36
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
But, as you know, we're not in Orwell's world. Skeptical is, but that's on him. That was a fiction. Predictive, yes, but that's it.
#37
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@949havoc
But, as you know, we're not in Orwell's world. 

Are you sure about that? There are very real consequences today for wrongthink in America.
Topic's author
#38
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
As I said, it's predictive. But, even if it expresses full-blown, and even defeats democracy in the short term, I know that will be short-lived, and then they'll wish they had not been born. That's good enough for me.
#39
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
I've not interpreted whether Trump is guilty, or not, but you have, even without an indictment, let alone a trial.
This is a thoroughly dishonest tactic. The conversation you are having is being held in the court of public opinion where the standard is whichever conclusion is most reasonable. If you have any thoughts on that you’re welcome to share them. But to sit here and pretend you’re advocating for reason while running away from the arguments and hiding behind your shield made out of “Bob Mueller didn’t indict him” is not only dishonest, it’s a complete waste of time.

And has SkepticalOne already pointed out:

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including”

This is a literal crime, so hiding behind what others did or did not do already fails.

I've heard that so many times, yet it is never justified. WHY is he a threat? HOW is he a threat? WHEN was he a threat? Be specific.
He’s a former president of the United States who is still running around the country claiming he really won the 2020 election.

You claim to know all about the constitution and the philosophies behind it. Please explain how that *alone* is not a threat to American democracy.

Topic's author
#40
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
@Double_R
The conversation you are having is being held in the court of public opinion 
Nope. The reality is, there are no current indictments against Donald Trump for the issues Secular raises, and he thinks that should not matter, that he is guilty anyway. Nope, as well, since guilt is only established upon conviction [in court, not in public opinion] Appears you're off-base, too. Public opinion and fact may not be the same thing.

exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, 
Not a crime unless it is demonstrated to be so, by evidence presented in court. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? You might consult the 4A and 6A. Enlightening. You, too, Sec.

He’s a former president of the United States who is still running around the country claiming he really won the 2020 election.
Show me the statute prohibiting that a private citizen do that. Tell me how that violates the 1A. There's your answer regarding how 'that alone' is isn't a threat.
#41
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
He’s a former president of the United States who is still running around the country claiming he really won the 2020 election.

What law is broken by having an opinion?
#42
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@949havoc
I've heard that so many times, yet it is never justified. WHY is he a threat? HOW is he a threat? WHEN was he a threat? Be specific.

CLuelesss ^^ Stop! these brain dead from eating any more brains

Are you sure about that? There are very real consequences today for wrongthink in America.

Clueless ^^ i.e. if only that were true humanity might have a chance to survive beyond 2232.   Stop! the these brain dead from eating any more brains.

Topic's author
#43
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@ebuc
Clueless? I'm clueless for asking valid questions that absolutely no one has answered ever since Hilarious Balloon Girl said Trump was a threat. She never explained why, either. If he was a threat, where are the indictments against him? Want to tackle that one, genius? Where are any if the the indictments for alleged crimes Trump has committed? Y'all own the DOJ, now. Why is everybody so shy? Hell, I was told by the media that Garland is a firebrand. He's a wet noodle. Cold.








maybe you don't have a case?
#44
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
As to this faux; sorry, don't know who that is.

Clueless? I'm clueless for asking valid questions that absolutely no one has answered ever since Hilarious Balloon Girl said Trump was a threat.

ಠ_ಠ
#45
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
The reality is, there are no current indictments against Donald Trump for the issues Secular raises, and he thinks that should not matter, that he is guilty anyway. Nope, as well, since guilt is only established upon conviction
I can see I am engaged in a bad faith argument, but I guess I’ll continue anyway for the record.

SkepticalOne never argued that Donald Trump should be locked up because he said so, we all understand and believe in the right to a fair and free trial. You are hiding behind the defense an idea no one is attacking.

What he’s arguing is that it is unreasonable to dismiss the multitude of facts showing Trump has likely committed a crime, something that Robert Mueller who you continue to invoke stated very clearly.

If you have any actual opinions on the subject you are welcome to share them. I can however see why you won’t, because it’s rather inconvenient for someone to pretend their political opinions have an ounce of credibility while supporting a man for president who  doesn’t believe the law applies to him.

Not a crime unless it is demonstrated to be so, by evidence presented in court.
And Joe Biden doesn't have dementia unless diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist. Yet somehow I doubt that will stop you from taking a loud and proud position on that issue, so why not Trump?

Because this is a bad faith argument.

Show me the statute prohibiting that a private citizen do that. Tell me how that violates the 1A. There's your answer regarding how 'that alone' is isn't a threat.
So to be clear, your position is that the only way for a person to be a threat to democracy is if they violate a statutory law? I somehow missed that conversation during the constitutional convention. Please point me to where the founding fathers concluded this.

And while you are at it please point me to what laws Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez violated.
#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
Where are any if the the indictments for alleged crimes Trump has committed? Y'all own the DOJ, now. Why is everybody so shy?
If they indict Trump then it’s a corrupt witch hunt fueled by the fake news media.

If they don’t indict Trump it’s proof that Trump is innocent.

Heads I win, tails you lose. Must be comforting knowing your bubble could never burst.
#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
So to be clear, your position is that the only way for a person to be a threat to democracy is if they violate a statutory law? 

Is this a serious question? The alternative is that anyone could be a threat to anyone at any time for any reason.
#48
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you even understand what this conversation is about?
#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
So we have Hillary in 2016 who deliberately and verifiably fabricated evidence and presented it to a grand jury...that's not a crime...but having an opinion on how the ballots were counted is a crime against "democracy?"

For fucks sake.
#50
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
A) Do you believe Vladimir Putin was a threat to Russian democracy?

B) What laws did he violate


#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
A) Do you believe Vladimir Putin was a threat to Russian democracy?

Sure, he used the power of the state to eliminate the opposition. Much like the FBI and IRS is used today to eliminate political opposition.
Topic's author
#52
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
If they indict Trump then it’s a corrupt witch hunt fueled by the fake news media.

If they don’t indict Trump it’s proof that Trump is innocent.
You don't know my mind at all. That's not how I think at all. You assume I'm a typical Trumpie. Nope. I appreciate what his policies did for me, personally. I appreciate his media handling. Had them eating our of his spoon because he understands media better than any president ever. Conversely, they didn't get him, at all.
If he is indicted, they better have more and better evidence than the House ever presented, because both impeachments were sacks of rotten potatoes that had no more legal standing than a drunk hanging on a lamppost, and the Senate, in both cases, served their roles with sober dispatch. Regardless there will be, if indicted, trials, and they will be what the will be. If he's guilty, it will be declared then. If innocent, that will be declared, What you think about either conclusion is of no interest to me whatsoever. What I think will not bve aired in the meantime because it serves no purpose.
#53
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@sadolite
Ah, I see - you allow no nuance. Good luck with that, my friend.
#54
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@949havoc
You mean besides trying to influence the results of an election with the influence provided by his office, trying to undermine confidence in our democratic process, or trying to overturn the results of an election with demonstrably false claims? 
NONE of that exists in any indictment. Do you get that?  Your condition is much more than skeptical. Just skeptical would understand, You're in lalalland assuming he should already be in jail. just stop it. I get it. You hate him. And?
You asked why Trump is a threat to democracy and I gave you easily verifiable facts. Obviously, someone can be a threat without an indictment - that is a ridiculous moving of the goalposts. Its not that I hate Trump, its that I want to see him being held to account for his actions. I think you should ask yourself why you don't.
Topic's author
#55
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
 I want to see him being held to account for his actions. I think you should ask yourself why you don't.
Lost count of how many times I've repeated this:

I've not interpreted whether Trump is guilty, or not,
I'm willing to let the process play out, if it is going to at all with indictments. The difference between us, as I have also repeated to you specifically, is that you have clearly indicted, tried, and convicted Trump already, and you wonder why he is not in jail, already. You say he is guilty now. You've said it multiple times. Do you understand what must occur before that declaration holds water? I've referred you to the Constitution a number of times. That you refuse to investigate what it says [I've even cited it for you] is entirely on you. My recommendation: stop the accusations and exercise patience. Either he is innocent - which, as of now, constitutionally, he is, or he will be found guilty, but only if he is indicted. You have naught to do with any of that process. In the meantime, you're but sounding brass.
#56
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@949havoc
You create a thread asking why Trump is considered an issue and then dismiss all answers because "he hasn't been indicted". I guess it never occurred to you he has been impeached or that indictment isn't the end-all-be-all of being an "issue". 

Trump's previous transgressions coupled with his continuing (negative) effect on the Republican party along with his future plans keeps him relevant. Holding him accountable to the Constitution (which doesn't necessarily require an indictment) is something a Constitutionalist like yourself should be interested in.

For the record, I am quite happy to let the process play out, but that requires we accurately name the (alleged) wrongdoing and submit them to unbiased jurors. So far, that hasn't happened. Supporters and even co-conspirators have been among his jury. I do look forward to the inevitable future indictments though. We can revisit this conversation then.


#57
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny"
#58
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
I appreciate his media handling.
He trained half the country to think of a free and fair press, one of the bedrock foundations of a functioning democracy, as the enemy of the American people and to excuse as fake news any report they do not like with no application of critical thought whatsoever.

Please explain what there is to appreciate about that.

Had them eating our of his spoon because he understands media better than any president ever. Conversely, they didn't get him, at all.
Eating out of his spoon? All he ever did was complain about how unfair the media was treating him. That was what… part of some master plan to make everyone think he was a childish, petulant, vile, ignorant buffoon to what… get tax cuts passed? What’s the logic there?

Please enlighten me as to what the media (and apparently myself) don’t understand about Donald Trump. I’d love to hear it.

If he is indicted, they better have more and better evidence than the House ever presented, because both impeachments were sacks of rotten potatoes that had no more legal standing than a drunk hanging on a lamppost, and the Senate, in both cases, served their roles with sober dispatch.
First of all, legal standing has nothing to do with it. Impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal trial. Congress’s job was not to determine whether he can hold onto his freedom, it’s whether he can hold the nuclear codes. Big difference.

Second, the evidence in both cases was overwhelming. If it were possible to find intelligent and unbiased jurors he would have easily been convicted. Instead republicans all decided to protect their president by doing the same thing you have done all up and down this thread: ignore every argument made and then claim no argument has been made. It turns out you can’t make someone understand something they don’t want to.

Either he is innocent - which, as of now, constitutionally, he is, or he will be found guilty, but only if he is indicted. You have naught to do with any of that process.
That’s not the conversation we’re having.

Yes, Trump is entitled to due process. Please stop explaining this as if you’re breaking some kind of ground here.

This isn’t criminal trial, it’s a debate site. We’re not juror’s ruling on Trump’s freedom, we’re DART users expressing our opinions. You’re welcome to join the conversation and share yours at any time. 
#59
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So we have Hillary in 2016 who deliberately and verifiably fabricated evidence and presented it to a grand jury...that's not a crime...but having an opinion on how the ballots were counted is a crime against "democracy?"
Two completely different topics of conversation. You are intentionally conflating statutory criminal violations with threatening the foundations of what makes our democracy strong.

Perhaps you should spend some time  reading the federalist papers and educate yourself on what the founding fathers were concerned about when they created the presidency.
Topic's author
#60
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
a free and fair press, 
Do you know how long it has been since our press has been free and fair? How about from the get-go? You realize, of courser, that the only private industry mentioned by the Constitution is the press. You may have been taught that the press is free and fair [I was, too], but the press does not merely report news. In fact, it does little of that.