-->
@Greyparrot
The copium lol. Trump has better approvals than Joe even after the relentless attacks lol
January 6th Hearings
Posts
Total:
655
-->
@ILikePie5
Just wait till the DemonRats discover who is actually running in 2024 ;)
-->
@Greyparrot
You know that Trump was President of the USA on January 6th 2021, don't you?
-->
@Greyparrot
This sounds a lot like "I am not interested in the other side of the story."
Unlike you , I don't pretend there is no other side to the narrative.
Just wait till the DemonRats discover who is actually running in 2024 ;)
-->
@RationalMadman
Democrats had 50 years to fix stuff. It's time for a new breeze.
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re implying that democracy was just as important as a football game lol
Something which Americans tune out in the 'political offseason' (by your own admission) having an audience comparable to that of a weekly sporting event should be significant even by your standards.
-->
@ILikePie5
This situation is governed by the rules set forth in Brandenburg v Ohio
No, it’s not. I am thoroughly convinced you are just trolling at this point, there is no way you don’t understand this by now.
I’ve pointed out repeatedly what this is about. Let’s go back to the OP:
“Curious to know what everyone's thoughts are. I'm also curious to know what Trump supporters think about the idea that he should be president again despite the evidence clearly showing his violation of his oath of office.”
This isn’t a criminal trial nor is this a discussion regarding the legality of some future criminal case. It is about how you, as a Trump supporter, continue to justify your support for this man despite everything he has done. And it’s also about the mental gymnastics you and others continue to engage in to avoid discussing the topic.
Brandenburg v Ohio is irrelevant to this thread. Logic, reason, and facts, what we do with those facts as every day Americans, and how what we do with those facts affects our politics… that’s what this thread is about.
Why is this so difficult for you?
Once again, you example has zero relevance because Court is clear that the incitement has to be direct, which is definitely not the case here because Trump said to be peaceful
The example is entirely relevant because the example doesn’t address legality, it addresses common sense. The example demonstrates that there are situations where you actually have to do the work of connecting the dots yourself. In the example I provided, no one element alone made my intentions clear, but when you add them up my mindset became clear. That’s how it works, sometimes you actually have to think.
And when you start to think, you realize how absurd it is to dismiss the entire case because Trump planted one exculpatory line in his speech. You realize that this months long effort to get to this point adds up to a very clear picture, his one-liner included. You realize that Trump has been doing this his entire life, and everyone around him knew it. Everyone at that rally knew it. Everyone in congress knew it. So the question I’m asking is; why don’t you know it? What is it that makes you so blatantly partisan that you cannot see something so simple which you would see in any other instance?
Trump lost WI because more legal WI voters decided that they wanted Biden instead. Whether they cast their ballots through the mail, in a drop box, or in person is irrelevant to that fact.That’s your fascistic tendencies speaking. If tomorrow the Governor of Wisconsin says I’m going to allow illegals to vote, under your premise you’d be okay with that.
Do yourself a favor, read the above, then note how your response is completely disconnected from what I actually said.
Nowhere in this statement or anywhere in this thread have I in any way endorsed the idea of illegals being able to cast a ballot. You made that up whole cloth.
In my statement I clearly and explicitly talk about legal voters. In a democracy, that’s the point. Not whether they submit their ballots through their own mail boxes, a drop box, or a polling station. Yes there are rules and those rules need to be followed, but you’re claiming an election was stolen. That is a completely different type of claim and conversion.
To support claiming the election was stolen, you need to show that the people (because that is what a democracy is actually about) who were supposed to be choosing their candidate, did not actually do that. Do you have evidence that they didn’t? Yes or no?
And let’s spare a thought for how absurd it is that a man using Donald Trump’s face as his avatar is lecturing someone else about fascism. Wow.
That’s a conclusion a reasonable person could come to if there’s a concerted effort by Democratic executives in key states to change the law unconstitutional to benefit themselves and their party
So to be clear, changing the rules on how people are allowed to vote with the intention of improving one party’s chances over another is tantamount to stealing an election. Is that correct?
That’s Congress’s job. Ted Cruz asked the FBI and they refused to answer. I’m all for subpoenaing the FBI to find this out. Are you?What’s your explanation for why Ray Epps still hasn’t been charged? I only see one reasonable reason.
Classic argument from ignorance fallacy.
It’s not congress’s job to refute your conspiracy theories. You’re the one making the claim that Ray Epps is a federal plant, therefore it is your job to provide evidence for your claims.
This is logic 101 and is how every conspiracy theory works. 9/11 truthers still argue that flight 77 didn’t hit the pentagon. Their evidence? The fact that the pentagon won’t release all of the tapes. Same exact logic.
Tomorrow if the Governor says I’m only going to allow blacks to vote, you’d be okay with that. The fact you think checks and balances are a red herring just shows your utter disrespect of the Constitution
Never said anything remotely resembling this. You are having a full blown discussion with your imaginary foe.
I have a clear explanation of why checks and balances within the Constitution don’t allow Trump unilateral power in the District of Columbia. Then I asked you have checks and balances have prevented Joe Biden from preventing the increase of gas prices? Something which you clearly ignore because it doesn’t suit your purpose. You’ve dropped like 50 arguments by now
I can’t respond to every single nonsense sentence you post, so I have to pick and choose otherwise is be here all day. The arguments I drop are those that are irrelevant to this thread. I’m sorry that I won’t go down your little rabbit hole distractions. Stick to the topic and that won’t be an issue.
The discussion here isn’t about constitutional checks and balances, it’s about the mental gymnastics needed to blame Biden for global gas prices while absolving Trump of his own lack of involvement in his own federal government’s response to the US Capitol being under attack to the point where Congress had to evacuate. If Joe Biden did that you would be all over it for months and you know it.
-->
@Greyparrot
Look up the May 29th, 2020 riots in front of the White House. In the blocks before the White House, violent rioters, looted and burned everything in sight and headed for the White House gates. The only thing that made this different from January 6th is that unlike Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump was prepared and had massive amounts of security standing by.
What made this different is that the rioters were not there because president of the United States told them to be.
Civil disobedience is a threat that needs to be dealt with, but is a natural thing every government in the world has to deal with from time to time.
The person who was entrusted to lead the country and protect it - using the power of his office to stir up such disobedience in an attempt to retain power against the will of the people is a completely different thing.
Amazing how you cannot tell the difference.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Something which Americans tune out in the 'political offseason' (by your own admission) having an audience comparable to that of a weekly sporting event should be significant even by your standards.
It should be more comparable to the number of people that vote. So 140-160. Even half would be good tbh. It’s fine though. It’s obvious only Democrats care about it. Just remember: you reap what you sow.
-->
@Greyparrot
@Double_R
No, it’s not. I am thoroughly convinced you are just trolling at this point, there is no way you don’t understand this by now.
Just because you it’s doesn’t, doesn’t make it true lol. You claim Trump incited the crowd. I showed you the law regarding incitement. Saying it’s irrelevant is false. Plain and simple.
I’ve pointed out repeatedly what this is about. Let’s go back to the OP:
What’s the goal of the J6 Committee. What crime are they going to charge him for? Insurrection? Incitement? What is it?
This isn’t a criminal trial nor is this a discussion regarding the legality of some future criminal case. It is about how you, as a Trump supporter, continue to justify your support for this man despite everything he has done. And it’s also about the mental gymnastics you and others continue to engage in to avoid discussing the topic.
So the J6 Committee has no purpose. If you’re not going to charge him, why waste this amount of taxpayer money. Are they trying to pass some law? What is it?
Brandenburg v Ohio is irrelevant to this thread. Logic, reason, and facts, what we do with those facts as every day Americans, and how what we do with those facts affects our politics… that’s what this thread is about.
It is not irrelevant. You and the J6 committee claim Trump incited the crowd to do the stuff they did on J6. I say there’s no criminal case to charge Trump so it’s not incitement, it’s free speech.
Why is this so difficult for you?
You’re the one ignoring Supreme Court precedent in matters of incitement lol. Then again, we know Democrats think the Court is illegitimate, so makes sense.
The example is entirely relevant because the example doesn’t address legality, it addresses common sense. The example demonstrates that there are situations where you actually have to do the work of connecting the dots yourself. In the example I provided, no one element alone made my intentions clear, but when you add them up my mindset became clear. That’s how it works, sometimes you actually have to think.
There is no common sense here. It’s legally incitement or free speech. One or the other. You say it’s incitement. I say prove it’s incitement and not free speech. Neither you nor the committee has proved it lol. You can connect the dots all you want. Prove to me that Trump directly told people to break into the Capitol. I’ll wait. Cause otherwise it’s free speech and not incitement.
And when you start to think, you realize how absurd it is to dismiss the entire case because Trump planted one exculpatory line in his speech.
Not saying one line of your Miranda Rights makes a case on a known criminal illegitimate. Why should this be any different. You clearly do not know how the law works. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defendant.
You realize that this months long effort to get to this point adds up to a very clear picture, his one-liner included. You realize that Trump has been doing this his entire life, and everyone around him knew it. Everyone at that rally knew it. Everyone in congress knew it. So the question I’m asking is; why don’t you know it? What is it that makes you so blatantly partisan that you cannot see something so simple which you would see in any other instance?
I see free speech and a legitimate complaint against the integrity of our elections because of rogue Democratic executives in key states. You clearly lack knowledge of the law to see that your phrasing/example/mumbo jumbo has no effect on people who see that people were incited by feds to enter the Capitol.
Do yourself a favor, read the above, then note how your response is completely disconnected from what I actually said.
Is it not? You said drop boxes were legal and that the Governor had that authority. I asked you what stops a Governor from saying we will allow illegals to vote. The law? You mean the law passed by the legislature that the Governor usurped the authority of. Give me a break.
Nowhere in this statement or anywhere in this thread have I in any way endorsed the idea of illegals being able to cast a ballot. You made that up whole cloth.
I never said you did. I said the premise you support would allow that to happen. Because you don’t care that the executive violated the system of checks and balances and created law out of thin air.
In my statement I clearly and explicitly talk about legal voters. In a democracy, that’s the point. Not whether they submit their ballots through their own mail boxes, a drop box, or a polling station. Yes there are rules and those rules need to be followed, but you’re claiming an election was stolen. That is a completely different type of claim and conversion.
It’s what your premise would entail. What’s the purpose of checks and balances if the Governor can do whatever he wants. The fact you think it’s okay that the Governor did that without the authority of the legislature is appalling.
To support claiming the election was stolen, you need to show that the people (because that is what a democracy is actually about) who were supposed to be choosing their candidate, did not actually do that. Do you have evidence that they didn’t? Yes or no?
No. If the election is conducted illegitimately, the election is illegitimate. That’s how it works. If you cheat to benefit yourself, even though you “won” you cheated to win.
And let’s spare a thought for how absurd it is that a man using Donald Trump’s face as his avatar is lecturing someone else about fascism. Wow.
Man, I just want one example of where Donald Trump didn’t abide by the system of checks and balances. I’ll wait. You think this is some sort of roast when you openly endorse Governors doing what they want.
Classic argument from ignorance fallacy.
False.
It’s not congress’s job to refute your conspiracy theories. You’re the one making the claim that Ray Epps is a federal plant, therefore it is your job to provide evidence for your claims.
There is evidence. He has not been charged yet. He was directly inciting people to break into the Capitol. And the FBI is hiding whether or not he was an agent. There’s reasonable doubt he was. If he wasn’t, so be it.
This is logic 101 and is how every conspiracy theory works. 9/11 truthers still argue that flight 77 didn’t hit the pentagon. Their evidence? The fact that the pentagon won’t release all of the tapes. Same exact logic.
Again. Provide me an alternate reason why Ray Epps hasn’t been charged yet. I’ll wait. Another argument dropped. And wasn’t it you who said it’s the job of Congress to investigate?
Never said anything remotely resembling this. You are having a full blown discussion with your imaginary foe.
Your premise implies that as possible because there is no check stopping the Governor. Which is it? There are checks and balances or there aren’t? The Governor willy nilly decided to put dropboxes, which the law passed by the legislature did not allow. So why can’t the next Governor say I’m only going to allow black votes to count? It’s obviously not in the law, but under your premise, he can still do that.
I can’t respond to every single nonsense sentence you post, so I have to pick and choose otherwise is be here all day. The arguments I drop are those that are irrelevant to this thread. I’m sorry that I won’t go down your little rabbit hole distractions. Stick to the topic and that won’t be an issue.
Lmao, I’ve answered all of your arguments and you drop my arguments cause they’re “irrelevant.” That’s code for I don’t have an answer to those.
The discussion here isn’t about constitutional checks and balances, it’s about the mental gymnastics needed to blame Biden for global gas prices while absolving Trump of his own lack of involvement in his own federal government’s response to the US Capitol being under attack to the point where Congress had to evacuate.
As I’ve explained multiple times the situations are different with respect to the powers of the President of the United States. Read the goddamn Constitution for Christs sake. One has clear restrictions in the Constitution. One Biden did with his pen without any restrictions.
If Joe Biden did that you would be all over it for months and you know it.
I don’t have to do anything. Joe Biden won’t be around for the next election.
But let’s recap.
Your premise allows the Governor of a state to do whatever he wants with respect to elections, even implementing stuff not allowed under the law of the state.
You have yet to explain what other reasonable explanation exists for why Ray Epps has not been charged for incitement besides he’s a fed.
You have yet to address why Donald Trump should have been in the bureaucratic process, even after he delegated the authority to the SecDef Chris Miller for the purpose that it wouldnt take long for help to get there.
You have yet to address why Capitol police did not do anything about security even after receiving intelligence that something bad could happen.
You have yet to address how the lack of cross examination by real GOP members is a good thing in a country founded on due process and cross-examination.
You have yet to explain why incitement should not be governed under the Brandenburg v Ohio doctrine rather than misleading the public about what constitutes “incitement.”
You have yet to explain why the committee purposely left out Trump saying “peacefully” in his speech to supporters on J6.
Thank you.
Trump really is such a baby. Between this and his horrible personnel management the first time around, who would even want to work with him during his second term (which I have resigned myself to assuming is happening.) If he had just conceded gracefully he would have like an 80%+ chance of coming back imo instead he incited his most gullible supporters into a riot
-->
@thett3
which I have resigned myself to assuming is happening.
I'll take that bet.
-->
@Greyparrot
I think he has around a 55-60% chance of becoming president again although it’s dropping imo
-->
@thett3
Yup. Losing the traditional 1st world problem political agendas opens up the field for real candidates to tackle the current real problems.
-->
@thett3
I think he has around a 55-60% chance of becoming president again although it’s dropping imo
To the contrary. The Midwest will likely have GOP Governors and GOP legislatures for the most part to pass election integrity legislation. Democrat Governors won’t be able to change the rules this time to benefit themselves
-->
@ILikePie5
Prolly not going to matter much TBH. Inflation's gonna be around for another year and nobody wants to touch a Democrat or a RINO with a 10 foot pole while that's going on.
-->
@Greyparrot
Prolly not going to matter much TBH. Inflation's gonna be around for another year and nobody wants to touch a Democrat or a RINO with a 10 foot pole while that's going on.
Bidinflation.
You see the new Hunter Biden stuff?
-->
@ILikePie5
To the contrary. The Midwest will likely have GOP Governors and GOP legislatures for the most part to pass election integrity legislation. Democrat Governors won’t be able to change the rules this time to benefit themselves
I think his chances of winning if he became the nominee have gone up as his social media bans have forced him to be quiet and Biden’s presidency continues to be a disaster…but I think his odds of winning the nomination have dropped drastically in the last six months or so
-->
@thett3
I think his chances of winning if he became the nominee have gone up as his social media bans have forced him to be quiet and Biden’s presidency continues to be a disaster…but I think his odds of winning the nomination have dropped drastically in the last six months or so
I disagree. If anything I’ve seen more and more people realize that Trump may have been an asshole but he was great for their finances and the economy. At the end of day, feeding your family and being able to afford gas is what matters.
Remember when Trump said gas would 5,6,7 dollars. Even I thought he was exaggerating. Turns out he was was right. Democrats are a disaster for the economy. A rematch today would have Trump regain GA, WI, MI, AZ, and gain NV
-->
@Double_R
The validity of my arguments have nothing to do with my intentions.
No, but your intentions certainly color your understanding of the facts; or even your recognition of what information counts as a fact. The difference between us is that you hate Trump, whereas I am ambivalent to him. I am neither predisposed to convict him in the court of public opinion nor exonerate him in that or any other forum.
You have not meaningfully addressed what I said. Instead, you have dismissed it entirely and repeated what you wrote with somewhat different words. I am reminded of discussions I had with skeptics over Trump/Russia. I leaned hard into that, because there was an amount of smoke that could not have been caused by anything other than a specific type of fire. Or so it seemed. Turns out there was only a little smoke. The rest was shadows, fog and bad weather. The alleged timeline produced by this so called "committee" is full of holes, inconsistent with the public record and cannot be taken seriously. It is less plausible than Trump/Russia, which was compellingly presented. But
We have reached the point where further discussion on this issue ceases to be useful, or even entertaining.
-->
@ILikePie5
You see the new Hunter Biden stuff?
It's really old more of the same news for those that haven't been gaslit by a covering media for the past 6 years.
-->
@ILikePie5
Brandenburg v Ohio is irrelevant to this thread. Logic, reason, and facts, what we do with those facts as every day Americans, and how what we do with those facts affects our politics… that’s what this thread is about.It is not irrelevant. You and the J6 committee claim Trump incited the crowd to do the stuff they did on J6. I say there’s no criminal case…
Do you know what an OP is and how it relates to what a thread is about?
That’s not a rhetorical question, please explain.
Not saying one line of your Miranda Rights makes a case on a known criminal illegitimate. Why should this be any different.
Because the law is necessarily technical as each of these technicalities are put in place to protect the rights of individuals being arrested.
What I’m talking about is the ability to use logic, reason, and critical thinking to assess what someone’s intentions were, and to use this knowledge to assess whether that person abused the power he was given and/or should ever be entrusted with it again.
Do you understand now, or am I going to have to find 10 more ways of explaining this to you?
I’ve answered all of your arguments and you drop my arguments cause they’re “irrelevant.” That’s code for I don’t have an answer to those.
It’s not code for anything. This thread has a topic. The topic is regarding what you think as an American about what the former president did and how that affects your perception of the prospect of his ever gaining power again. In your desperation to avoid addressing this question, you have tried to turn this thread into a discussion entirely about the legality of some prospective criminal case against him. I’d be happy to discuss that topic, but until you address the actual topic this is nothing more than a desperate attempt to distract.
You don’t need a legal case spelled out to attack Biden, Clinton, Obama, or any other prominent left wing figure, so your partisanship here is blatant. All I’m asking is for you to be an actual person and have an actual opinion for yourself. The fact that you keep deflecting from that speaks volumes about how indefensible Trump’s actions were.
But let’s recap.Your premise allows the Governor of a state to do whatever he wants with respect to elections, even implementing stuff not allowed under the law of the state.
My premise is that the claim “the election was stolen” is not supported by pointing to changes made by election officials to accommodate the circumstances of a sudden pandemic.
That is not remotely similar to your fantasy narrative of what I’m arguing. I would appreciate if you actually started talking to me instead of the imaginary Double_R you have concocted in your mind.
Again, no one is arguing that there are no laws and/or that those laws should not be followed. That is an entirely different conversation.
Your claim focuses on election officials, I’m talking about the people of WI. In a democracy, the entire idea of elections is that they reflect the will of the people. In the absence of any argument that the vote did not reflect the will of the people, I can see why you go down this ridiculous path of pointing to the election officials.
What you clearly do not get is the absurdity of where your path leads. If it is perfectly fine to toss out votes because election officials didn’t follow the rules, then all you need to do is plant election officials in key areas so they can implement new rules and voila… you get to kneecap your opposition by throwing away their voters votes.
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature understands the absurdity of that. The way you deal with election officials not following the rules is to terminate or discipline the officials, not punish the people who live within their districts by taking away their voice. That’s common sense.
Moreover, the idea that they were “cheating” by doing what they did is also nonsense. Setting aside the obvious reasonableness of accommodating voters by making it easer to vote remotely in the middle of a pandemic, let’s remember that mail in votes at that time historically benefited republicans. It was only after Trump politicized the virus, and then politicized mail in ballots themselves in response to the changes made by those election officials that mail in ballots became a “democratic” thing. So your claim fails on every level.
You have yet to explain what other reasonable explanation exists for why Ray Epps has not been charged for incitement besides he’s a fed.
Because that’s not my responsibility. Again, you are the one claiming he is a federal agent, so the burden is on you to provide evidence for that claim. This is really basic stuff.
Insinuating that he is a federal agent because we have no better explanation is the literal definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Look it up. Or better yet, apply basic logic. What you’re actually arguing is “I can’t explain why he wasn’t charged, therefore I can explain why he wasn’t charged”. That’s a clear logical contradiction.
So for the last time, it is not my nor the governments responsibility to refute your conspiracy theories. Present a valid piece of evidence and then we’ll have something to discuss.
You have yet to address why Donald Trump should have been in the bureaucratic process, even after he delegated the authority to the SecDef Chris Miller for the purpose that it wouldnt take long for help to get there.
First of all, you again ignore the fact that Trump authorized him to do whatever was necessary to help the protesters, not to defend the US Capitol. Not that I would ever expect you to let facts get in the way of your narrative.
More importantly, the reason he should have been involved is because he’s the fucking President.
“The president of the United States is the commander-in-chief for the District of Columbia National Guard. Command is exercised through the secretary of defense and the commanding general, Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ), District of Columbia National Guard… The mayor of the District of Columbia, the United States marshal for the District of Columbia, or the National Capital Service director may request the commander-in-chief to aid them in suppressing insurrection and enforcement of the law; however, there is no chain of authority from the District of Columbia to the D.C. National Guard.[3]
The fact that you continue to pretend Trump had no responsibility to get involved in protecting the country he swore an oath to protect is truly amazing and a case study in cognitive dissonance.
You have yet to address why Capitol police did not do anything about security even after receiving intelligence that something bad could happen.
Because that’s not what this thread is about. I asked a very specific question in the OP which you continue to pretend I didn’t ask.
If you are insinuating that there was a conspiracy to purposefully under-resource security at the Capitol as to leave the Capitol vulnerable so that Trump supporters could over run it all so that the democrats could finally have an excuse to impeach Trump, whom they already defeated in the election… then provide evidence for your claim.
If not, then all this question is asking is why someone failed in their job responsibilities to provide adequate security. That is a question worth asking and we should all know, but that is absurdly insignificant compared to what Trump is alleged to have done and an entirely different conversation. Address the actual topic of this thread and I would be happy to address your explanation when you come up with one yourself.
You have yet to address how the lack of cross examination by real GOP members is a good thing in a country founded on due process and cross-examination.
Due process has nothing to do with a congressional hearing. You call me ignorant on the law but continue to post nonsense like this.
The GOP members on the panel are as real as any republicans who have ever served in congress. The fact that they are not licking Trump’s balls like Jim Jordan doesn’t change that.
And like I already explained, they had a chance to put “real” republicans in the panel. They chose not to and they did that because they knew partisans like yourself would carry their water and pretend that their choice not to participate on any level means we all get to ignore the fact that Trump’s own aids are telling the country under oath that this man did everything the committee has been telling us he did. That’s ridiculous.
Also, again, those defending Trump are free to testify at any point. None of them will. That should make you think, but it won’t.
You have yet to explain why incitement should not be governed under the Brandenburg v Ohio doctrine rather than misleading the public about what constitutes “incitement.”
Because that’s not the topic of this thread. Whether the committee has put together all of the elements needed to establish the legal definition of incitement and brought a case sufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is a completely different thing from you looking at the situation as a human being and using your own common sense to determine whether Trump did in fact incite people to attack the US Capitol.
To the later point, the people attacking the Capitol literally told us they were doing so in real time. The J6 committee even brought a witness to the stand saying the same thing. Ignore it all you want, it still happened.
You have yet to explain why the committee purposely left out Trump saying “peacefully” in his speech to supporters on J6.
I did explain that, spent a whole chunk of a long post on it. Not my fault you don’t read and absorb.
-->
@Greyparrot
@Double_R
You are actually committed to these crazy mental gymnastics regarding the law and the Constitution and I applaud you for that.
All I have to say at this point is that Trump didn’t violate the law and he won’t be charged nor convicted. Democrats have learned nothing after Youngkin’s win in Virginia and it will cost them dearly in November
-->
@coal
The difference between us is that you hate Trump, whereas I am ambivalent to him. I am neither predisposed to convict him in the court of public opinion nor exonerate him in that or any other forum.
I am not “predisposed” to convicting him in the court of public opinion, I have thus far with the information we have cast him a guilty verdict in said court. This thread discusses the reasons for that verdict. Your entire argument is essentially that because I have an opinion, my opinion is therefore biased and illegitimate. That’s ridiculous, but you continue to demonstrate this by focusing on me and ignoring the points I made regarding the case against him.
You have not meaningfully addressed what I said
Then you haven’t made yourself clear, unless you are referring to your attempts to psycho analyze me instead of addressing the topic of this thread, in which case I have no interest in addressing it.
-->
@ILikePie5
All I have to say at this point is that Trump didn’t violate the law
I know that’s all you have to say, because this thread is about your opinion as an American which you cannot give because it’s not defensible, so you instead go down the legal technicality route. I guess if I insisted on holding onto such an indefensible position I’d do the same.
Democrats have learned nothing after Youngkin’s win in Virginia and it will cost them dearly in November
I wonder if the DNC is secretly funding the DeSantis campaign like they did with other GOP that won elections. Wouldn't put it past their woke stupidity.
-->
@Double_R
I know that’s all you have to say, because this thread is about your opinion as an American which you cannot give because it’s not defensible, so you instead go down the legal technicality route. I guess if I insisted on holding onto such an indefensible position I’d do the same.
Too bad the 6 year clock is running out of time to close the walls on Trumpy.
-->
@ILikePie5
I disagree. If anything I’ve seen more and more people realize that Trump may have been an asshole but he was great for their finances and the economy. At the end of day, feeding your family and being able to afford gas is what matters.Remember when Trump said gas would 5,6,7 dollars. Even I thought he was exaggerating. Turns out he was was right. Democrats are a disaster for the economy. A rematch today would have Trump regain GA, WI, MI, AZ, and gain NV
Trump had better policies than Biden but his platform doesn’t seem all that different from a more mainstream GOP politician, especially now that he destroyed the old “Bush” establishment. I would rather have someone like Ron DeSantis or Glenn Youngkin without Trumps baggage being the nominee and I think a lot of people are starting to feel that same way.
I mean why want a standard bearer who is so easy to attack, can only serve one term, has alienated millions of people who would be open to voting Republican or not voting at all if there was a different nominee…Trump really wasn’t a very effective president and his finishing move being to incite his most fervent (and gullible) supporters into a riot that resulted in a lot of them having their lives destroyed/severely damaged because he couldn’t take an L…I want someone else. Him becoming President again would be extremely funny so I’ll grant that
-->
@ILikePie5
I also agree that if the election were held today Trump would probably win, but we don’t know what the future holds. The economy and inflation could get worse from here in which case the dems would be in deep trouble but it could also get better in which case Biden, or a more competent dem nominee, would have a strong chance of winning especially against Trump. Picking the guy who could probably scrape a win at his opponents lowest point isn’t a recipe for success and would at the very least leave lots of house and senate seats on the table. And really his inability to just take his lumps wasn’t acceptable. Idk what else to tell you. I was a massive Trump shill for years but you have to face the fact that he’s a complete manchild after a while
-->
@thett3
I also agree that if the election were held today Trump would probably win, but we don’t know what the future holds. The economy and inflation could get worse from here in which case the dems would be in deep trouble but it could also get better in which case Biden, or a more competent dem nominee, would have a strong chance of winning especially against Trump.
I would disagree. I think Trump would still have a strong chance just because of all the disasters Biden has had in the past.
Picking the guy who could probably scrape a win at his opponents lowest point isn’t a recipe for success and would at the very least leave lots of house and senate seats on the table.
It’s actually conceivable that the GOP gets 60 seats in the Senate depending on results this year and 2024z
And really his inability to just take his lumps wasn’t acceptable. Idk what else to tell you. I was a massive Trump shill for years but you have to face the fact that he’s a complete manchild after a while
Oh he’s an asshole. I definitely agree. But he did some great work for the nation. Screwed over by Democratic hacks who illegally changed election rules.